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

Procedural questions resolved, discussion of evidence and such can continue on main case pages. — Wug·a·po·des 23:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 I would appreciate it 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. answered --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC) It said the same thing that I later wrote in my evidence submission, just more succinctly. Volunteer Marek 19:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC) I think endorsed by ArbCom is probably too strong. I'm just guessing here, but I doubt most arbs have seen this conversation. My position, to be completely clear, is that the use of revision deletion was reasonable, but not so unambiguous that we can pick from the two extremes of "unlimited posting" and "redact on sight". Honestly, the wording of the cited section is more confusing than helpful for me in this situation. If you want the committee to come to a nuanced position on how WP:BLPCRIME applies to on-wiki allegations about misconduct by another editor, a discussion and decision like that is not going to be done on the timescale of hours; even then I'd vastly prefer a community discussion on what to me seems like largely a policy question. A partially redacted version is already available. See User talk:Gitz6666 (permalink). As for the spat between you and El_C, how about we call it here, eh? I'm still trying to work through Ealdgyth's evidence regarding conduct in articles specifically regarding sourcing; some might recall that as being a major point for this case. As it stands, I'm not particularly interested in moderating a debate between two people who aren't even parties regarding what can be said about a third person who also is not a party. As the banner at the top says, this page is for procedural questions and we seem to be quickly losing sight of that. — Wug·a·po·des 19:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC) I think that your clarification here is plenty nuanced, and I thank you for clarifying that. For the partially redacted version, I see that the central part is Yeah, well, I never threated (Redacted) so right there there's one small difference between me and Icewhiz., which occurs during a discussion where Volunteer Marek is talking about the harassment by Icewhiz. Obviously, those of us who don't see the redacted part have no way to assess what it was or how strong or weak it is as evidence of anything potentially sanctionable by ArbCom – but I'm going to trust that ArbCom is working on that. As for what you call a spat, all I said was 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.: [1]. The comments of Barkeep49 and VM to which I referred are those here: [2]. If that was either a "spat", or outside of scope, I'd like to know why. What that elicited from El_C was Tryptofish's provocations on cue, laughable, and par for the course, from: [3], and the sheer incompetence of their line of attack, from: [4]. Given that I did not "attack" El_C, but merely asked for an explanation of his reasoning for something in-scope and case-related that I found "uncomfortable", it seems to me that ArbCom needs to enforce the "Expected standards of behavior" given at the top of the Evidence page. answered--Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC) At the top of this page, and as I said at the end of my previous reply The evidence talk page is for procedural questions. The comments you link to are on the Analysis page and they have a section for comments: this is not that section. It's also quite presumptuous of you, in a conversation where an arbitrator had already replied twice, to try and speak to our desires with I suspect ArbCom might find it useful. Yes, El_C's responses to that and following comments were not appropriate in tone. I believe you both to be smart enough and mature enough to know that when I say (1) stop it and (2) use this page as directed, that you (both) can make the proper corrections before I need to use other tools. — Wug·a·po·des 20:27, 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 policy, like BLP (which has possible legal ramifications), but that is in fact not so. El_C 18:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC) I'm sorry El_C but you haven't been paying attention to this topic area. I haven't been active in it for more than a year now, yet you write as if I had been editing it all along. You have also not been paying attention to who has actually been driven away. The only people that I can think of that have been genuinely "driven away" are some of the very editors targetted by Icewhiz and then by Grabowski and Klein. Speaking of "even reprehensible persons are afforded the rights and protections of WP:BLP how about you saunter over and take a look at recent history Wojciech Muszyński and Tadeusz Piotrowski and apply this "even reprehensible persons are afforded BLP etc etc etc". And yes this is relevant, because one of the things that I'm getting blamed for, by Icewhiz and Grabowski & Klein, is precisely insisting that BLP applies even to people one doesn't like. Now, even though I'm seeing some completely off-the-wall BLP violating nonsense going on, I'm not touching it with a 100 foot pole because... well, why should I? It's just gonna get presented as a diff against me and somebody will pretend that insisting on BLP policy makes me a "Polish nationalist". No thanks. I'm done here. Icewhiz or whoever can have their little attack pages against living people. I've done more than my share and got nothing but grief and harassment and false accusations and name calling for it. Volunteer Marek 19:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Ignoring the questionable conduct issues between VM and El_C for a moment, I think it would be helpful for some clarification on WP:ASPERSIONS and whether it has WP:BLP implications. ARBCOM might want to consider whether this issue is relevant to the case when proposing a decision. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC) [Q]uestionable conduct issues — I don't even know what that means... El_C 18:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC) @Thebiguglyalien I think you have a very different sense of what the scope of this case is. We're going to be focused on "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". This is why I gave the answer I did about Icewhize and unless El C gets added as a party - and so far I am aware of zero evidence that would support such an action - his use of revdel is outside the scope of this case in my opinion. Perhaps other arbs will disagree but in that case it would happen at the proposed and final decision stages not on this page as @Tryptofish seems to want. This case already has a massive scope without getting into interesting but not directly pertinent policy and guideline questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC) As for what I seem to want, let me be clear about what I actually do want. I asked El_C to clarify something he said. And I want ArbCom to make it clear that El_C's personal attacks on me are inappropriate. answered --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC) I'll echo the concerns that were widely agreed upon during the case request and say that its scope is basically artificial. It doesn't actually address any particular issue or action, and it just comes across as damage control after two people took advantage of their positions in academia to engage in an on-wiki dispute while bypassing our dispute resolution process. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Sorry, but this is not working out for me. First, we have Trypto having followed me here, with the aim of presenting me in the worst possible light — make no mistake, this is a product of an unrelated recent dispute (bitter dispute) involving the two of us. I fully expect more of the same from them to occur elsewhere (or even in this arbitration proceeding again) in the near future. Secondly, though less critically but also not great, is Thebiguglyalien making vague, and I would argue also false, assertions concerning "damage control," and so on. I contend that these are distractions that work against clarity here, for this section's subject. So I'm gonna take a break from this, and if I return, hopefully there'll be less of either, but especially, I'm hoping that any further attempts by Trypto to target me when they think I'm vulnerable, will wait for a different venue (i.e. not this arbitration case). *signing off* El_C 21:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC) This puts me in an awkward position, as I already struck through the parts that an Arb indicated I ought to and I would have preferred to have left it at that, and it appears that I did so unilaterally. No, I did not come to this discussion from here: [5]. I came from here: [6]. I've been following this case from the start, as an interested member of the community, and there is zero evidence that I have been following El_C anywhere else, because I haven't. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC) The only section Trypto had participated in here is the one involving my evidence. This is not a coincidence. Neither is their attempt to paint me in the worst possible light a coincidence. And there was nothing for them of me to follow as I've been away for months, only having returned in early March. No amount of mental gymnastics can disguise this. Now, if I can leave this page without having to engage them for the time being — that would be ideal. El_C 22:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Do I need to say that the Arbs have already said that we should drop this, that this is the wrong place to pursue it? If you want to accuse me of harassing you, there is ANI, but not here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 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. [7] and [8] by GizzyCatBella. This edit by Nableezy seems to indicate that this is a prexisting issue in the topic area.[9] There's also this more recent edit by VolunteerMarek at a Signpost talk page [10]. 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)

You are correct. Which is why I calibrated my statement with "in the context of your usage" (I should have said "in the context of my impression of your usage"). North8000 18:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It does happen in all subject areas that several like-minded contributors dominate content disputes. One could say they make de facto editorial boards. Someone who does not like it could call them a "tag-team", "a group of distortionists" or whatever else appears in Wikipedia:Assume bad faith. Someone could say this is a natural behavior of people in such editing environment. This is just a general comment; I do not imply guilt by anyone specific. My very best wishes (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Its only a problem in a select few topic areas and its a problem which the community is working hard to address (including through this current discussion). Its not a natural behavior, its disruptive and juvenile (cliques are just as damaging here as in the 5th grade lunchroom). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I saw such "groups" in every subject area, including physics and biology. Are they problem or solution? If you happened to disagree with them, then yes, that's a "problem" from your personal perspective. But if you usually agree with them, this is a "solution". And no, they are not "cliques as in a lunchroom". Everyone of them is typically an educated and independent contributor. They just had happen to have common interests, read same books, have a similar background and therefore generally agree on something, after short discussion. In that case, this is probably just a common interest in Polish history. My very best wishes (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

IMO they're always a problem, even when they agree with me or when I am arguably part of that clique. Even if you think they're a necessary evil at the moment you must agree that they aren't something we should tolerate in the long term. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you are not going to tolerate the groups of productive collaborators in the project, this is very bad. We must encourage collaboration in the project, not discourage it. My very best wishes (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem isn't with the collaboration, the problem is with the domination and thats a problem restricted to minority of topic areas. Domination is not collaboration, its pretty much the opposite. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Before this gets into an argument, I think it should be pointed out that both of you seem to be talking about two very different things. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I'm not sure I see what you see but it would make sense for us to be be talking about two very different things because what My very best wishes is saying doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The only official guideline applicable here is Wikipedia:Canvassing, and of course we have WP:Consensus. Did particular contributors (or an alleged "group" of contributors) violate these rules? My very best wishes (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I must have missed something, can you link where it was established that WP:Canvassing was the only official guideline which was applicable here? As far as I can tell nobody has even mentioned it up until this point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

These are guidelines most relevant to people working in "groups". Let me rephrase. Did contributors X,Y,Z clearly violate any WP rules? If they did not, they are just productive collaborators. If they did, that needs to be judged on a case to case basis. Simply being systematically in agreement about something is NOT a proof of any wrongdoing, maybe just an opposite. G&K think this is a proof of wrongdoing. My very best wishes (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Productive editors do not dominate topic areas... They do the opposite, they invite others in to participate and instead of pushing newcomers out of a topic area they welcome them in. Productive editors in general want more participation in their topic area from other editors, not less, even if that means that their own contributions will be less prominent (I would be absolutely ecstatic for example if someone completely obliterated my overwhelming majority authorship of Maritime industries of Taiwan by quintupling the size of that article). Perhaps this has gotten too philosophical, I will digress here unless you feel that there is a pressing need to continue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, someone saying "Get out of here and don't come back!" would be clearly problematic. My very best wishes (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

That does appear to have been the effect of what has occurred in this topic area. If extremely reasonable long term editors share feelings like these[11][12] we clearly have a problem, right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I do not think these two diffs mean a lot by themselves. I do not know anything on this subject. Apparently, two participant have expressed dissatisfaction three years ago. But maybe they were on the wrong side of the dispute and did not check some sources? This is frequently happen with me in areas where I am not an expert. Or maybe that was just a typical content dispute? I have no idea. If these people still think there is a serious problem and come forward with evidence, then perhaps Arbcom will consider their diffs with explanations. My very best wishes (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

And speaking in general, not about these two contributors, saying "what a hell, I am out of here!" is not helpful for improving content, although totally OK because no one has an obligation to participate in anything. But this is not a proof of wrongdoing by another side in a content dispute. My very best wishes (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

AS mentioned many editors concentrate on topics that interest them; Say dinosaurs - there is some point where editing dinosaurs to exclusion (individually or in a group) could become ownership of the topic and somewhere beyond that resides conflict of interest.

Because of the subject matter, the parties accused in the arbitration may be "more vulnerable" than editors who concentrate exclusively into areas that are perceived as being laudable. The approach taken to address this issue needs to be uniform across all topics and all users.

It was mentioned that the process of editing might allow (or even encourage) the type of editing that occurred in this case.

Therefore, The issue really relates to process which in turn means that a change to Wikipedia's rules and operating procedures may be needed. This might be a "big ask" but it might be the right thing to do.

Flibbertigibbets (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we need to change anything, this is why topic bans exist... For when an editor is disruptive within a specific topic area but not in other topic areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Did Icewhiz canvass? Xx236 (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I have been topic banned. The result is that I was not allowed to finish my edits and the subject has been ignored by other editors since 2018, which is just used as a prove of my bias in 2018. I have included my source, a 42 pages long paper by the Jan Grabowski, but I did not summarize it and noone has since 2018. WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence#Evidence presented by Ealdgyth

Generally people are emotionally involved in their work. This Wikipedia prefers people uninvolved, which may support psychpats, ignorants, paid editors. The other problem is cultural. Some cultures control emothions more than other ones. Multiculturalism has to coordinate the two types of cultures rather than prefer the cold West and exclude warm South (generally speaking).

We have here cases of Westplaining, people from eg. Australia explain what is to be enslaved, murdered, to live on ashes of millions. Further topic bans will make Innuits editing pages about surfing and Beduins editing types of snow. Referenced sources belong to certain cultures. An American may misunderstand an European article and vice versa, even if both are written in English. People study history, to understand historical sources. Any text is such source and should be critically evaluated. One needs some education to understand the problem.

Xx236 (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

There are thousands of articles with this same problem. This set just happened to receive a very thorough analysis from outside of Wikipedia. And the cause is not editors violating our policies and guidelines, it is from editors USING our policies and guidelines. Which enable, allow and reward this type of activity. The big fix would be to fix the policies and guidelines. The "medium level" fix (which I encouraged Arbcom to do here) would be findings and "soft" enforcement of the concept that when we edit here, we leave everything else at the door and just strive to create quality, informative articles. North8000 (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

AS an example of "outside influence" consider the positive press and attention garnered by the effort to add women scientists to Wikipedia. In this case we have a "conforming editor" that stays well within the process while advocating for what is perceived (internally and externally by the press) to be "an underrepresented group of people." There is a positive perceptual bias in and outside the community to address what might be considered systemic bias.

However and because the editing is a "monolithic construct" of a single editor; there is no possibility of consensus building or vetting. I am sure the facts behind each woman scientist added has been researched to "conform" to existing guidelines such as notability and being verifiable.

AS in this case there is no consideration for context or weighting which is a key to narrative framing and the gauging of conflict of interest.

It would actually be more difficult to allege bias in regards to narrative framing in terms of Women Scientists than it would be to allege narrative framing as was done within this arbitration.

Yes, "There are thousands of articles with this same problem" therefore the concern is with process and rules.

(again, I would appreciate if these statements are not revered or retaliated against). 

Flibbertigibbets (talk) 16:42, 17 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)

@Ppt91, please see the FAQ where your question is answered. Izno (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Izno Thanks and my apologies. I completely missed it. It's all clear now. Ppt91^talk 20:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussing the G&K article

It seems that both the article in general and the article in the context of a specific claim have been removed from the evidence page. Where is the appropriate place to present the argument made in the article as a relevant factor and to explain how it's relevant to disputants in this area? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

A handy rule of thumb: if your claims reference a specific line or page of the article with citation, we will likely consider them; if your claims are unspecified or about the article as a whole, we are unlikely to consider them. W.r.t. the linked diffs: (1) we know and are considering the article, you don't need to tell us about it, (2) we know that the authors know about Wikipedia, but we can't compel people to participate let alone control the press so it's not clear what the point of that submission even is. — Wug·a·po·des 19:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

They did participate. That's what the article is evidence of. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for splitting this reply in two places but this is actually the better place for me to make the point I tried to make above. The Arbitration Committee discussed this topic at great length. And we came to a compromise. That compromise was this publicly debated and voted on motion. That decision has been made. You do not have to like it - this is one of those compromises that left me very unhappy as the person who drafted it - but do need to understand that attempts to redebate this are unlikely to accomplish much. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 Technical query: is your link above to "this publicly debated and voted on motion" correct? I don't think it shows what you wanted it to show (or at least I am uttery confused in what I am seeing). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

You're right @Piotrus. The link should be to the Chapmansh section when you scroll. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Fixing ping. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Scope questions

First of all, could someone let me know if the format of what I just posted is acceptable. I would appreciate feed back before I say anything else

Second, with respect to editors in the topic area who are not named parties, I would appreciate some feedback on what is considered sufficient evidence to add someone as a party. I have two such cases in mind. In one, the behaviour is recent. In the other the behaviour I noted is *not* recent and I do not know anything about that editor's current behaviour. They do appear to be an active account though.

Third, I actually encountered most of the named parties, the ones that that I know, in the somewhat-overlapping topic area of the current war in Ukraine. The exception is Piotrus, whom I first met at WP:PNT. Some things that happened with articles about Ukraine may be relevant to a pattern of editing for some named parties, and possibly to explaining and/or mitigating some behaviour of other parties. But I realize that this is a big scope creep. Elinruby (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Going to just answer your second question for now: both kinds are appropriate. The more recent evidence is more likely to be compelling but if someone else were to show that the older evidence is part of a pattern that is compelling in its own way. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok thank you. I realize the third question in particular is difficult and will accept whatever the decision is. As to the first, I am just leery of repeating any format mistakes but events have kind of overtaken this question and I will be asking to add a party who has recently edited. I will be happy to reformat later if asked. Elinruby (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

So having had a bit more time to look into this, I would say your format and style is definitely acceptable. We're trying to be incredibly neutral with our summaries so, as the FAQ gives the example of, we're less likely to use edit warring than some other wording but it works. Some of that might get moved to analysis but nothing is out of order from what I see (though when I or another arb/clerk goes to do the actually summary perhaps something else will be found).

As for Ukraine, we're not examining the named parties contributions to the whole project, just to the topic areas of World War II history of Poland and the history of the Jews in Poland, broadly construed, which as has been noted is already a very large scope. If at the end of this case there is a broader case to be made of editor misconduct that the community has been unable to handle a new case request could be filed that focused on a broader conduct examination across all of the project. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

A procedural question

I have no any diffs/evidence implying guilt by any listed parties in this subject area. However, I can see that several contributors provided evidence that addresses content issues related to the case. Two questions.

1. Would such content evidence (similar to that by Ealdgyth) be acceptable?
2. Something can be provided in the following form: "[a statement from article by G&K] - a comment". Would that be helpful or acceptable? My very best wishes (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

1. The drafters have been discussing Ealdgyth's submission and might have more to say on that soon.

2. A statement from G&K, with an appropriate diff, and some comment is definitely acceptable (as to whether it's helpful, that would depend on the specifics). It is possible that the comment gets moved to analysis. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! After some checking and thinking, I have nothing helpful to provide here. And I am not convinced by evidence by others. Some of that is very old. Indeed, "we are not our past", and it is important to focus on the current and active disruption, if any. I can see that some contributors started improving some pages per the article G&K, which helped to improve these pages, but also caused some objections and discussions. However, they look to me as ordinary content disputes. In the end, this boils down to a simple question: would it be good for the project if contributors X,Y,Z stopped editing in the subject area? And my answer is "no" for one of the reasons mentioned by G&K, i.e. these contributors created a lot of content in this subject area. Was it bad content? No, I am sure 99% of it was good. G&K want these contributors be removed for alleged problems in the remaining 1% or less. Of course if any active contributors were intentionally placing misiniformation to pages, that would be a reason for serious sanctions. But I do not see any evidence of that. My very best wishes (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Speaking on the evidence by Ealdgyth and other similar matters. Yes, it is great to examine that source X say this [...]. However, it appears that some of these statements are probably wrong when checked against other sources by Holocaust historians (as explain in the comment by Zero). Further, yes, some of the summaries on pages are strange or poor rather than misinformation, however if contributor A has restored such summary (made by someone else) as a part of reverting to a stable version of the page (for example) and this specific summary was not challenged on talk page by anyone, I do not see anything sanctionable here. Sure, one can find a lot of strange or poorly written content on WP pages. And in general, if professional historians disagree with each other on these subjects, what one can demand from volunteer participants? My very best wishes (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Appealing Wugapodes summary of Ealdgyth's evidence

See my comments here. Wugapodes comments go far beyond what User:Ealdgyth wrote and states in their own voice - not Ealdgyth's - that the sources do not support the text. As indicated twice now, the sources do indeed support the text. The original dispute regarding the text was whether it should be attributed or not, no one questioned that the source - Paulsson - supported it. Volunteer Marek 01:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it makes sense for @Wugapodes to give the initial response to most of this appeal. But about the point Ealdgyth presents two diffs... You present ... eight., independently of Wugapodes while I was working on a different summary I found it necessary to give extra context in order for the evidence that was being summarized to make sense. Often Arbs (or potential arbs) are asked if they only examine the diffs or the context around them. In both of these cases you are seeing Arbs explicitly acknowledge that they are considering the full context around a diff not just the diff itself. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

See my response to the post on the analysis page. — Wug·a·po·des 02:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Trangabellam re: ElinRuby

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Response to this version:

• we're not examining the named parties contributions to the whole project
  — Arb Barkeep49

  Per procedural fairness, all parties shall be held to the same standards. Accordingly, ER's evidence around Aryan Valley does not matter.

• Having been warned about their behaviour at Naliboki massacre towards other editors, (AE case, reaction to case, reaction to warning), TrangaBellam bulldozes articles, refusing to discuss [..] But her rigid preconceptions and disdainful treatment of input raise the question of how well she knows the topics she rewrites. For example, she accused an editor many times more senior of "shenanigans" [Diff 1]

  This impresses upon someone that even after being warned (whether rightly or wrongly has no bearing), I have persisted on the same behaviour. Grave! But Diff 1 is about a month-old edit that was already discussed in the AE and cited as the primary factor for the warning. Double Jeopardy etc.

• Since Grabowski, she has been editing in Poland. I noticed at the "Glaukopis" RSN post that this behaviour continues.

  I made a single comment at the RSN post; what is ER speaking about?

• The following evidence supports the behaviour pattern. Deleting reference: Diff 2

  Now, can the arbitrators and/or ER let me know what reference was deleted in the edit?

• The following evidence supports the behaviour pattern. Gaslighting: Here for pattern

  Concerns the Aryan Valley episode; not under the purview of this case. Yet, it is a bizarrely surreal discussion where I kept stating that it was not my intention do X, only to be asked why I intended to do X. [X = Deleting article about four villages.]

• Accusations of trolling: Diff 3

• I will let Bishonen be the judge.

• Large meaning change?: Diff 4

• No idea about what is the accusation. This is the vaguest charge I have heard in a while.

• Sign of issue?: [..]

• I have tabs open for as long as a hour before commiting the edit and it is sometimes difficult to check carefully when a certain comment was made. Notifications in Wikipedia only arrive on a reload or page submission unlike FB, Insta, etc.

• Dismissed BLP concern: Diff 6

• I will ask Marek if he feels, in light of our discussion, that my additions were reasonable. In the end, we saw the merit (the extent is debatable) in the other's position and decided to wait for other editors. What is the issue? And, editors routinely dismiss BLP concerns; that is not a wiki-crime in itself.

• Accusation of bad faith: Diff 7

• WTAF. Both of us value each other's contributions and how can someone read that as an accusation of bad faith? I am just flabbergasted.

• Bias? Unsure: Diff 8

• Sources are unanimous that the publication is conservative. We cannot really be using their own labels; as is the case in USA, far-right publications like to market them as centrist etc. Removing self-sourced descriptions do not show my bias.

• edit-summary: Diff 9, Diff 10

• ce = copyedit which is indeed an adept description of the first diff. I am sorry but what is the accusation? As to the second, what is the issue? The Institute of National Remembrance propagates the journal in the form of a book and online. The latest number of periodical was presented in the press conference on January 21, 2021 in the Educational Center IPN of the Janusz Kurtyka's name in Warsaw. is not useless trivia? The bilingualism of the articles ensures a wide audience, the journal becomes a platform for scientific analysis of Polish-Jewish relations and discussions about it. is not useless promo, which belongs at the about-us section?

• In "Dismissiveness", one of the diffs is to an edit of Marcelus! There is one diff, which was a bit rude, but that was discussed in AE along the rest.

TrangaBellam (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• All in all, I insist that arbitrators enforce some minimum standard of evidence. If editors cannot comply with them, they need to be prevented from presenting evidence. Further, I enquire of the arbitrators whether random editors can interpret editorial communication between others to their own fancy w/o bothering to verify with either of the parties. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  Huh - "random selection of old typos"? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

OMG can she please spell my name right if she absolutely must keep emoting like this

(ec)(ec)(EC)(ec} The cut and paste error has been addressed I believe, as well as couple of category errors. If not LMK.

Also, at the point where TB complained at a fourth admin's talk page about the unfairness of someone questioning their edits I was looking at her contributions, saw the exchange, realized that I no longer needed Aryan Valley to establish a pattern, and removed the link. I am far from done and suggest TB get some sleep since in any event the section above it, which is finished, will be evaluated first, I think, no? And I still need to link to all these talk pages she keeps going to, lest someone accuse me of omitting some fact. I am doing this on a mobile phone and it's slow. If I have to explain random selections of old typos to TB as I go it will take proportionately longer. Elinruby (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of my evidence is not fully accurate

I am concerned that the summary of The Forgotten Holocaust misrepresents a few points.

1. This sequence of events is wrong: "On March 1, LEvalyn replied to Nihil novi's February 20 comment [...] to which Nihil novi replied that same day [...] LEvalyn responded in part [...]." Both my quotes are from my first response to Nihil Novi. Ordering them in this fashion suggests that my second quote was a response to the quote from Nihil Novi, which it was not. My actual response was this: [13]

2. More subtle, but I think Piotrus replied to LEvalyn suggesting that those who supported AfD should go to Articles for Deletion is not accurate, since Piotrus was the one bringing up AfD for the first time. Rather, I would say that Piotrus suggested that those who wanted to remove content should go to AfD.

~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@LEvalyn: you are correct in both cases. Fix for #1, Fix for #2. Note that if you wish to appeal any future summaries please do so on this page, not the main evidence page. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, and my apologies for putting it in the wrong place. I’ve occasionally read an ArbCom case but never participated in one before and wasn’t sure where I should or shouldn’t post. It looks like you moved the other out of place bits too: thank you. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

No need to apologize about the wrong place. In many cases the evidence would have been allowed to stay there, while the summary is new to this case so it's a new process for everyone. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for extension (K.e.coffman)

Hi Arbs: while the diff count in my draft submission is within the limit (30), the narrative comes in at 1450 words. I believe the word count is needed to provide proper context for the diffs, so I'm requesting an extension. I hope you can accommodate it! -- K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman You can have 1500 words for your initial submission. If you have more to follow, please wait until the first round gets summarized. — Wug·a·po·des 02:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Understood, and thank you for accommodating my request. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for extension (Gitz6666)

I would like to submit evidence of the prolonged edit war on History of Jews in Poland between February and June 2019. I counted 46 diff and 800 words (mostly analysis). You can see a preview of the text here (section on Postwar Property Restitution) and assess whether it might be useful for the case. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

As a note of order, I posted a comment at talk page of Gitz with a couple of comments about this piece of evidence [14]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: We're still discussing this. My opinion is that you can probably trim it more which will help with the word count. For example, your diffs for Poeticbent are largely from 2009. While not out of scope, diffs that old are not particularly useful without evidence of (1) a pattern that is (2) a recent issue. I don't see that there, and simply omitting that section saves you a good number of diffs and words. — Wug·a·po·des 07:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, but there's a misunderstanding. I don't intend to submit anything about Poeticbend. My request for extension refers only to the edit war about Jewish property. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I've just removed from the sandbox the content I don't intend to submit. Happy to trim the remaining text (2019 edit war) though if you think it's helpful. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 we're still discussing but what I would like to encourage you to do a pass on, is whether some of this could be "saved" for analysis rather than posting it in evidence and forcing it to be copied over to analysis. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You can arrange my materials, if you find them useful and relevant to the case, in the way you think best. E.g., I could post the first two lines as "evidence" (without any diffs) and the remaining part as "analysis", as you suggest. Alternatively, the whole text (800 words, 40 diffs) could be "evidence" and the first two lines could be "summary of evidence", as I originally planned. You tell me what's best. And please let me know if this is the kind of information you are looking for: collecting it takes a lot of time, and if it is not useful I would rather be relieved of this self-assigned task. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Your extension is granted. Evidence about specific conflicts and how they reflect the conduct of participants is the kind of evidence ArbCom finds useful. Now the committee will often weigh things differently than the submitting party - sometimes we think something is no big deal that the person submitting finds egregious and vice versa - but it is the kind of evidence that is useful in consideration. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Realized I should ping @Gitz6666. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If Gitz6666 is going to submit extensive evidence, I would like to have them added as a party since there's a whole bunch of context here. Volunteer Marek 08:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC) I'm aware that the deadline for adding parties is March 21 but I am going to be travelling today and tomorrow and since asking for a party to be added requires diffs and evidence which takes a good bit of time to compile. I would like to ask for an extension on that (making a request to add Gitz6666) - it doesn't have to be long, just a day or so. Volunteer Marek 16:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Concern and response have been noted but I don't see this going anywhere productive. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

So you weren't originally planning to propose adding them as a party but now that they're submitting evidence against you you do? Seems like retaliation, no? I'm planning to present extensive evidence against you, does that change your opinion about whether I should be a party? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC) I wasn't originally planning to propose adding them as a party but their subsequent actions have made me reconsider. Yes. Not retaliation just the situation changing. "Retaliation" is someone coming over from one topic area, where they were topic banned because of an editor, to continue pursuing grudges and battlegrounds in another topic area which they have never edited before." "When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind. What Do You Do, Sir?"". Didn't you complain about editors constantly formulating their comments in forms of questions as passive aggressive behavior or something? Volunteer Marek 16:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Who is the editor you are accusing of retaliation? You're obviously are making a reference to someone specific, Gitz? Just wanted to give you the heads up, I've got well over 100 diffs with you in them so if you want to get me added do it now. I don't remember making that complaint, that would be odd as I often formulate my comments as questions and passive aggressive would appear to be the default setting for all veteran wikipedia editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek I'm going to get into this more in a response over at analysis about your concerns re:timeframe of the case, but if we were to extend the deadline for you it would mean we'd extend it for everyone and that we would push back the close of the evidence phase by the same amount of time as recent committees have felt as a matter of fairness that every named party be given at least 2 weeks of time to participate in the evidence phase. I am not opposed to that as the drafters discuss this but I just want to note that's what this would mean. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek we have extended by 2 days the time to add parties (and pushed back all deadlines accordingly by 2 days). Barkeep49 (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I have two concerns here.

1. Several parties to the case (Paul Siebert, Mhorg and me) did not edit in this subject area beyond making a few occasional edits. The article by G&K mentioned precisely one my passing by edit in article space, where I restored some content saying it did not violate BLP and seems to be sourced, in my opinion (and yes, it is that one edit appears in the evidence by Gitz). What suppose to be an outcome here? Topic ban these contributors? But they do not edit in this area at the first place. Regardless to outcome here, I am not going touch these subjects with a ten-foot pole. Because Big Brother is watching.
2. Some of the evidence by Gitz is clearly outside anything related to Poland, very old and has been already addressed on WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I can see that Elinruby and TrangaBellam just were included as parties. Yes, that makes sense because these contributors suddenly decided to edit in this subject area and already edited a lot, just as Gitz. My very best wishes (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you mean by Some of the evidence by Gitz is clearly outside anything related to Poland, very old and has been already addressed on WP:AE? Are you talking about this evidence? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Summary of K.e.coffman's evidence on Gizzy Cat Bella

Am I missing something or does the issue of the Lazar Berenzon does not appear in K.e.coffman's evidence, even though User:Wugapodes included stuff about it in the edit summary? Volunteer Marek 05:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek K.e.coffman's evidence says: See my statement at GCB’s first (unsuccessful) appeal of their topic ban: Statement by K.e.coffman. It's the first bullet point in the referenced and linked statement. — Wug·a·po·des 06:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah ok, so it wasn't in her evidence directly, you pulled it out of one of her links. Ok, shouldn't you then also summarize GCB's explanation from the same link? Volunteer Marek 06:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I have edited the summary to include GCB's explanation and K.e.coffman's response to the explanation. — Wug·a·po·des 06:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea why I have been pinged

Moved from Special:Permalink/1145705024#I have no idea why I have been pinged

I can't even remember what I edited, it must have been years ago. But it would have been because the BUF was very minor with no real collaboration beyond the odd member (such a joyce). Thus (given some of the other examples) massively undue. Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Slatersteven, we have received (and will likely continue to receive) evidence about editors who are not currently named parties to this case. Some of those individuals might be added to the party list if it turns out their involvement was greater than initially surmised, but others (which you seem to imply includes yourself) will have the evidence removed as being out-of-scope. Primefac (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Time to add new parties extended by 2 days

This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland § Time to add new parties extended by 2 days.[edit]

In response to a request, the time to provide evidence with the purpose of proposing new parties to the case has been extended by 2 days. The new deadline is 23 March. All subsequent deadlines have also been pushed back by 2 days. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion...

I'm going to try to phrase this as nicely as possible, but would it be possible, @Elinruby: to work on your evidence in a sandbox and just copy-paste it over here? Right now, according to X-tools, you've got over 150 edits to the evidence page, almost five times the amount of the next editor. Your edits are flooding my watchlist and making it more difficult to see when others are adding evidence. It would be greatly appreciated if the volume of edits could be .. cut back even a small bit. Thank you. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep, Ealdgyth. Just trying to clean up the mess from the other night when there was pressure to get stuff *in* in however ugly a manner. Don't think I am supposed discuss why that was. But sure, will do my best to accommodate this request. And thank you for a) making the request and b) being nice about it. Elinruby (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Conduct of parties

Moved from Special:Permalink/1145916754#Conduct of parties

So, "The scope (as indicated on the case header) is the 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." Well, I am not going to play the "blame others" game and try to get someone sanctioned. Yes, I had some disagreements with some named parties - but nothing that would make me report them to AN(I), AE or here. Nobody is being disruptive to the point we need sanctions (although an occasional mediation might be helpful, particularly regarding a heated discussion here or there). And yes, mediation is a thing, as is WP:3O (see Template:Dispute-resolution). While I may elaborate on this, I just want to say openly that I have no complains regarding other parties or generally any active editor in this topic area, and I find their contributions to Wikipedia, and this topic area, a net positive. To be clear, that doesn't mean I fully agree with everyone - but per WP:AGF and WP:HERE, I believe we can work out any differences through civil and constructive discussions, respecting WP:BRD, WP:CON and like. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Does gas van story belong to the topic?

I am working on my evidences, and I am interested to know if the gas van story relevant to this case?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes though if the conflict is about the soviet use of them that would be out of scope. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Extension, or ok to delete?

I am probably pushing my word limits. There is no rush on this request, as I don't have plans to talk any more today, but I would just like to note that. Is it ok if I delete the (quite valid) requests for diffs from my section, as I think they have been addressed? I'd also appreciate it if someone from the Committee could let me know, when possible, that it has taken note that I was not trying to add Slatersteven as a party? That would allow me to delete that subsection also, right? Elinruby (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

As noted in the FAQ, you are welcome to change unsummarized sections of your evidence. It is only summarized (and collapsed) evidence that should not change. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Taking that to mean yes, yes and yes. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Typo

Evidence summary / Bibliography / From K.e.coffman's evidence / 3rd bullet point: "help" for "held" Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

And if anyone wants to add a missing verb here: "On March 1, Piotrus Diff/1142226813 a belief " (expressed? stated?) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Both  Fixed, ta. Primefac (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Summary of evidence missing section?

At Evidence/Summary I don't see a "Summary of evidence involving Chapmansh". Wouldn't it be relevant with regard to content such as Summary_of_evidence_involving_Lembit_Staan that discusses the essay written by Grabowski and Klein/Chapmansh? Quoting from said summary: Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust wrote... - the article didn't write itself. It was written by User:Chapmansh. And Lembit Staan expressed his concern as can be seen in his evidence heading here: "Baseless accusation of me being a Holocaust revisionist. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You're correct that the section was missing. I have fixed that. Thanks. However, per our motion " Evidence submitted about Chapmansh must show what policy or guideline has been violated" and so far no summarized evidence has met that standard. Barkeep49 (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

What about WP:OWH? I remember that in the preliminary statements a couple of people raised the point that the G&K article might violate this rule Marcelus (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Please see this motion on the main case page. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I've seen it, but it's not so much about outing as it is about harassment or making bad faithed claims about editors off-Wiki in general. From the beginning, this article seemed "problematic" to me, but as I learn more about the whole situation, including during this AC, this conviction only increases. Marcelus (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Where/when may I reply to VM's evidence?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Volunteer Marek posted evidence about our interactions in the Russo-Ucrainian TA and asked for my involvement as a party. Could you please instruct me on where I am allowed to respond to his allegations (e.g., should I reply to his post there, should I create my own subsection, etc.?), word limits and deadline before you make a decision on his request? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I've just asked the imposing admin @Callanecc to lift the tban for the purposes of allowing me to submit evidence. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666, you can either submit new evidence that you would want to be added to the summary or you could discuss what has been summarized at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II_and_the_history_of_Jews_in_Poland/Analysis#Volunteer_Marek's_evidence_about_Gitz6666. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll do it later as im now travelling. But let me understand better. VM says "I've never said that shooting a Russian pow in the legs doesn't amount to torture, contrary to what Gitz claimed". If i wanted to share a diff on this, where would be the right place? It's not "evidence", i guess, since it's outside the scope of the case, but it's also not "analysis", since it was omitted from the evidence summary. Is it just irrelevant? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

VM hasn't entered "I've never said that shooting a Russian pow in the legs doesn't amount to torture, contrary to what Gitz claimed" into evidence. Truthfully that comment falls outside the scope and I did not summarize several pieces of evidence VM submitted about your conduct outside of scope. I did summarize evidence that seemed to contain background necessary to understand conflict between you two with-in the scope. But truthfully even that might have been too much which is why I pinged my fellow drafters when I discussed it.

Now to answer what you've actually asked, if you think there needs to be additional context/information about what has been summarized already that should go to evidence as diffs. If you would like to analyze/discuss what has been summarized do that at analysis. If you have diffs of VM saying he hadn't said something but then you can prove he did with-in the case scope that would go in evidence. If you have diffs of VM saying he hadn't said something but then you can prove he did outside the case scope, for now you should not submit those anywhere. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @Barkeep49, I'll try to follow these instructions the best I can and submit my comments (which will probably be "Analysis") as soon as possible. Please, Arbs, be so kind as to wait for my submission before ruling on the issue raised by VM.

With regard to the shooting a Russian pow in the legs incident, what VM entered into evidence is the following statement: Note that the same diff includes a blatantly false allegation against me: "They (VM) even reached the point of questioning whether shooting Russian POWs in the legs amounts to torture" (I never said or did anything like that and Gitz6666 knows that very well). My "blatantly false allegation" was actually true, and if I wanted to prove this, I would have to share diffs that fall neither on the "evidence" page (this is Russo-Ukrainian stuff) nor on the "analysis" page (this statement by VM has not been summarised). But I can't leave this unanswered, can I? Since you say that "If you have diffs of VM saying he hadn't said something but then you can prove he did outside the case scope, for now you should not submit those anywhere", I will not submit my answer, but I will leave it here on this talk page:

• Re "VM questioning whether shooting Russian POWs in the legs amounts to torture", I was referring to VM adding the tag "failed verification" here [15] (Russian prisoners of war have allegedly been (...) tortured) and commenting on the t/p here [16] (I'm sorry but the source [17] does NOT say that Russian POWs have been tortured. What it says it that torture of POWs is against the Geneva Convention) and here [18] (And one more time - it's simple really - if you think that there is "torture" of Russian POWs then you should have absolutely no problem providing a source which actually says so. Not "I think this looks like maybe it kind of says that it was alleged and then denied" but actually says it), to which I replied here [19](providing seven RSs using the word "torture" to describe the incident), and still he would not drop the stick [20]. Arguably this can be described in good faith as I did in that ANI thread, i.e., I saw you deny that shooting Russian prisoner of war in the legs should be described as "torture".

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on the same rationale, I reply here on VM's I do think it is relevant that Gitz6666's behavior was likewise found to be problematic on both the Italian and Spanish Wikipedias and was blocked indefinetly on both for pretty much this type of behavior. The poinit has not been summarised and is outside the scope of this case (although perhaps it is not entirely irrelevant to the ArbCom decision?), so neither Evidence nor Analysis are the right place for my reply (if I'm not wrong).

My reply: I'm not currently blocked, let alone indefintely blocked, either on it.wiki, es.wiki, or other wikiproject: [21]. My blocks on it.wiki and es.wiki have been revoked. None of them have been applied for wiki-hounding. The block on it.wiki was not for tendentious editing. The block on es.wiki was indeed for tendentious/disruptive editing, but I was accused of being a pro-Islamic SPA, which is obviously not the case. Both blocks are explained in detail here [22]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Sigh. Why are we talking about this yet AGAIN?

Here is me adding the failed verification tag: [23]. The text I'm adding the tag to says "The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about videos and allegations of ill-treatment, torture, and public humiliation of civilians and prisoners of war in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine: marauders, bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters and curfew violators have allegedly been publicly humiliated by police officers and members of the territorial defence". There's nothing here about "shooting Russian POWs in the legs". The source lists "people believed to be marauders, bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters, and curfew violators" but NOT "Russian POWs". It would have indeed been better if I had put in the "failed verification" tag right after "prisoners of war" rather than at the end of the sentence, but since this was being discussed on talk in detail everyone knew what the "fv" referred to.

There's also a HUGE difference between saying "this source does not refer to "torture", please find another source" and saying "shooting POWs in the legs is not torture". I said the first. Gitz6666 kept pretending - and still is - that I said the second.

GItz6666 also says they (later) provided seven RSs using the word "torture". They then skip my actual reply and go on to a later comment I made. Since my reply actually said "Then go and use these sources" [24] this omission appears to be purposefully deceptive - I was fine with including this info but with sources which actually supported it, not with ones that didn't.

Ok. Now. This is like EIGTH time this has been explained to Gitz6666. And every time the explanation has been the same. Yet, Gitz6666 keeps repeating this stuff. Gitz6666 is now pretty clearly using THIS ArbCom case in ONE topic area, to try and re-litigate their topic ban in ANOTHER topic area. Which at some point really does become a violation of their topic ban or WP:GAME. Volunteer Marek 03:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Here is an article describing these marauders and their punishment in some detail [25]. Gitz strenuously argued at a couple of noticeaboards that thees guys were also sexually abused. I do not see any evidence of this, but I had an impression these alleged marauders were actually Ukrainians, and definitely not Russian POWs. Sure thing, Russian forces looted a lot, but this is a very different story. My very best wishes (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, MVBW, but we were not talking about "marauders" there (by the way, it was not me but the OHCHR who reported that marauders were sexually abused), we were talking about the Russian POWs in Mala Rohan. The topic was how to summarise this source (Human Rights Watch) in the article War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and VM argued that we couldn't report that they had been "tortured" (they had been shot in the legs). You should remember this well, since you removed the info from the article body claiming that the video was a fake, although the info was reported by CNN [26]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, but I think the example with marauders is telling about the disputes we had have out there. Yes, there were Russian soldier marauders during this war, and they are described in this section of the page. But you argued to include an entirely different issue, i.e. the claim about the alleged Ukrainian marauders being allegedly abused by Ukrainian civilian vigilantes (ref above), which might be a crime, but not a war crime (the subject of the article). My very best wishes (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

So it's inevitable, we must talk about RU stuff, eh? As I told you many times, you and VM seem to believe that war crimes are something that happens in relations between stetes: a war crime by Russia against Ukraine, or viceversa. This is false: war crimes happen between individuals - victims and perpetrators. This means that Ukrainians can commit war crimes against Ukrainians, and it is even possible for war crimes to be committed by civilians against other civilians. What is required is a serious violation of international humanitarian law ("grave breach") and a connection to war ("nexus"); according to most definitions, it is also necessary that the crime give rise to individual responsibility of the perpetrator (see RS). Therefore it is possible that when Ukrainian civilians, police officers and members of the territorial defence stripped naked some individuals accused of being marauders and pro-Russian supporters and beat them up, they committed a war crime. The OHCHR first reported this as a violation of human rights (here at para 41), but when they started to kill the Russian collaborators, this was explicitly qualified by the OHCHR as a "war crime" (here at para 40). In both cases, you and VM strenuously opposed the publication of this information. As you know, eventually we had an RfC on this ("killing of collaborators") and the consensus was to publish, but we never published anything because when the RfC was formally closed I had already been T-banned. What is upsetting is that while you were opposing the pubblication of this content, you were also proposing (e.g. here and here), and via edit war achieving, to include in the article content about the attacks to nuclear power plants, which no RS qualifies as war crimes (RSs explicitly say that they are not war crimes: Lieber Institute West Point, OSCE report at p. 39). This open disregard for consistency shows that you were just POV-pushing there. I loath Putin and consider the invasion of Ukraine an international crime and a political and humanitarian catastrophe, but I also feel contempt for this way of WP:GAMEing our policies to produce your Intentional Distortions. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it’s not inevitable “we talk about RU stuff”. You could just drop it. Especially since you’re topic banned from discussing it and now this has gone well past “participating in an ArbCom case” and into “using the excuse of the ArbCom case to circumvent the topic ban”. Your initial request to User:Callanecc was for an exemption which would allow you to mention issues which “touch upon” [27] the topic youre topic banned from. This is now way more than “touching upon” but a full fledged attempt to revisit and re-litigate precisely the issues which led to the topic ban in the first place. Volunteer Marek 18:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

/me enters cautiously: The question of Russian POWs shot in the leg arose with respect to the incident at Mala Rohan, on which Gitz insisted on creating an article despite the fact that the RS disagreed on specific important points, and that I had informed him that his reading of the Le Monde source was erroneous.

Because life is short, I eventually walked away from this article after I tired of discussing with Gitz over and over again the meaning of the conditional tense in formal French. And also that "a vérifié" means "has checked" not "has verified". This is a minor and rather subtle point, but I think it is notable that he is now arguing about this incident with VM after arguing with a native speaker about whether Google Translate is correct on meaning a source's wording. In my opinion the article still misrepresented the incident the last time I checked it Elinruby (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Since most of my comments (and probably the rest of the thread) is likely to to impenetrable to anyone who hasn't spent months in the subject, the article I mentioned is Torture of Russian soldiers in Mala Rohan. It seems that the article was started by a different account, not Gitz, but he had a lot to do with it. [28]. Due to time constraints I have not looked at the article text today.

ToBeFree your edit summary in this thread is correct Elinruby (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

:) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: I *think* the part about sexual abuse of looters and marauders was about a separate discussion in which I did not participate but read when it hit one or another of the noticeboards. Apparently some people were tied naked to signposts or telephone poles. I too was under the impression that these were Ukrainians suspected of opportunism, but I could be wrong. As I recall the outrage was because whether or not this can be considered sexual abuse it was not in the same category as what happened at Bucha for example. Hope that helps. I do not remember the name of that article or whether it even still exists.

Further addendum: Gitz is actually correct that a war crime is something committed by an individual. Shelling the nuclear power plant might be a crime against humanity or a crime of aggression or even possibly terrorism. I know I have said this a time or two before, but it is easy to get drowned out in a discussion with Gitz. I do not recall what VM or MVBW may have said on the subject exactly. Again, I hope this helps. Elinruby (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gitz evidence cut and paste error

The link labelled "Elinruby evidence" goes to someone else's evidence about something else. Could we remedy that please? Elinruby (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I haven't yet figured out which section it was actually meant to point to, but I found and fixed something else ([29]). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: thank you, I did not check the links at that section. Piotrus and I made changes to different articles as a result of that RSN thread. The link I am talking about above should, unless I am somehow mistaken, point to the section titled "Support adding Gitz as a party", most of which is collapsed. The collapsed portion includes an editor interaction report. Elinruby (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see what you're referring to now: The summary page's source code currently (permanent link) contains the term "Elinruby evidence" twice. Both instances, however, do seem to correctly link to the evidence page's section that at least a part of the summary was taken from. For example, the "sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py" link from the "#Support adding Gitz6666 as a party" section is summarized with a link to that section. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

ToBeFree really? if you think the links are correct I will take another look. Possibly I need to reboot or clear my cache or something. Disregard the request, I guess, unless I come back to tell you it still looks wrong to me. I am only commenting on matters in progress in between RL events today and don't have the bandwidth to nail down specifics this instant.Elinruby (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby, I may be completely wrong. If you hover over the link with your mouse on a desktop computer, or check the address bar after clicking the link, you should hopefully see if that's the case. The new Vector skin did, or does, have some interesting issues regarding section links. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: it went to the right place when I looked again. Don't know. No action is needed though apparently Elinruby (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Summary of evidence involving Gitz6666

Tthe summary of Elinruby's evidence involving me is Volunteer Marek, Gitz6666, and My very best wishes have all edited 456 articles with-in a week of each other. (Elinruby evidence). I'm not sure if this figure is accurate. I haven't counted them (I don't know how to do it) but I'm pretty sure I haven't edited 456 articles on this project. May I suggest (as I did in my analysis) that the evidence summary distinguish between VM and me, MVBW and me, and VM and MVBW? E.g. 1) "Volunteer Marek and Gitz6666 have edited XXX articles with-in a week of each other"; 2) "My very best wishes and Gitz6666 have edited XXX articles with-in a week of each other"; 3) "Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes have edited XXX articles with-in a week of each other"? By the way, adding GizzyCatBella to this interaction analysis might be interesting, although she's outside Elinruby's submission. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 you're correct. The proper number was 84. The previous count included places only two of you had interacted (which was normally VM and MVBW). If you wish to submit your own evidence about interactions you may do so. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I submitted my evidence about interactions in the form of "Analysis" of Elinruby's evidence here. Is this OK or should I move my comment to the "Evidence" subpage? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to have that analysis there and it will be considered by those who read the Analysis (which includes the drafting Arbs at minimum). If you wish it to be included on the summary page you need to add it to the evidence page. The FAQ explicitly notes the possibility of this iterative and additive process. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

My apologies if my evidence was confusing. I wasn't expecting VM's evidence and saw it just before the deadline to add new parties. I myself was actually interested in who edited which articles first. I'll have to check whether it is still true with respect to Poland though, before I submit any analysis of it. Elinruby (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, please help me understand something. As I explained here, I became a party to this case as a result of VM's request. VM shared several diffs and links pertaining to the RU area, complained about my year-long pattern of disruptive editing in this topic area combined with a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach in the RU area, he accused me of deliberately lying (I never said or did anything like that and Gitz6666 knows that very well). Finally, he shared no less than 19 diffs (!) of Elinruby arguing with me in the RU area. ArbCom accepted his request. So, I wonder: what kind of evidence am I allowed to present? As I understand it, I should provide evidence showing that VM and other parties to the case have been POV-pushing and disrupting the Russo-Ukrainian topic area - the only one in which I have been substantially involved. But VM says that I should referain from doing so, that it would be an attempt to relitigate my topic ban and hijack this case for that purpose. So, should I simply leave his accusations unanswered and focus on the HiP topic area exclusively? Or are my interactions with VM (and perhaps others) outside the HiP area relevant to this case? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666, the drafters had already been considering whether or not to add you as a party before Volunteer Marek's request. To quote the FAQ it seemed liked you had become relevant participant in the topic area. As I noted on the Analysis page, is there something in the summarized evidence - that is the evidence ArbCom considered relevant to the case - that you feel is incorrect or misleading? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The Summary of evidence involving Gitz6666 is correct. That summary, however, includes a link to Volunteer Marek evidence. Volunteer Marek evidence IMO contains misrepresentations. Moreover, both the summary of evidence and Volunteer Marek evidence report two statements of mine, [VM] is the most blatant and disruptive POV-pusher I've ever encountered and In the EE area, he is openly an anti-Russian POV-pusher and always has been. These statements were made not on article talk pages but at ANI, and can be seen either as uncivil/tendentious or as serious and well-founded allegations of misconduct. I believe they are serious and well-founded allegations of misconduct; moreover, I believe Volunteer Marek evidence contains misrepresentations. Am I allowed to prove these two claims by submitting evidence or are they outside the scope of the case? Thank you Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Focus your energy on the topic area of this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that, but I understant that this implies that ArbCom will not apply any sanction to me on the basis of my activities in the RU topic area. Since I'm not allowed to present evidence related to the RU topic area, ArbCom will assess only what I've done and said in the HiP topic area. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: cough, small point but: I read those diffs as *you* arguing with *me*, while, given that you weren't listening anyway, I tried to disengage from trying to explain the French conditional tense to you. Small as this point may be, and not in evidence, other people are reading the page who are not necessarily going to go read the diffs. So as somebody who just put into evidence a positive contribution from you, I suggest you take a deep breath, consider the ways that you may come across that you possibly do not intend, and measure your words. If you feel the need to explain to me that you did not say what you clearly did say here, I hereby unban you from my talk page in the interest of protecting Barkeep's sanity. Take it up with me there. Elinruby (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

this implies that ArbCom will not apply any sanction to me on the basis of my activities in the RU topic area - correct. We are looking at disruption and conduct issues as they relate to the indicated scope of this case. Of course, if there is demonstrable evidence of a combative nature between two named parties inside and outwith the scope of this case, it will likely strengthen the support for sanctions between those editors, but single-editor conduct issues are not being looked at if they are not in-scope. Primefac (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I said (here above) that The Summary of evidence involving Gitz6666 is correct. However, on second thoughts, I'm afraid it is incomplete.

The summary contains a couple of statements in which I accuse VM of being tendentious/disruptive/incivil, which at first sight could qualify as WP:AOTE, WP:AOHA and WP:ASPERSIONS. However, the summary doesn't make it clear that these statements were always made in the context of ANI discussions. This is said explicitly only for the first one (Gitz posted 20kb report at ANI...; by the way, why mentioning that it was 20kb? I provided over 70 diffs, is this bad? It was my first report at ANI, anyway, so if it was not done properly that shouldn't be noteworthy) but it is not said for the second allegation (On January 11 in a reply to Volunteer Marek, Gitz6666 wrote...). Moreover, the edit summary doesn't report that when I accused VM of being tendentious/disruptive/incivil, I aways substantited my accusations with diffs (e.g. in January at ANI this [30], leading to WP:BOOMERANG and my T-ban from the RU area).

I think this is important: I've always raised my complaints at the appropriate fora to address behaviour - ANI, AE and user talk pages. Contrary to VM, I don't use article talk pages and edit summaries to cast aspersions (purely indicative, highly incomplete list of VM casting aspersions against me in t/p discussions: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]; in edit summaries: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]). It would be terribly unfair if this went unnoticed. I've always been polite and respectful towards VM, which was not reciprocated, and I have never allowed our animosity to pollute the article talk pages and the editing process. Any I-ban here, if deemed necessary, could only be one-way. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Extension of evidence phase

I'd like to request that the evidence phase is extended by 5-10 days due to "real life" deadlines with which it collides, that prevent me from participating here as I otherwise would. François Robere (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@François Robere we're 11 days away from the scheduled close of the evidence phase. Put another way, we're only 3 days in to what would be the length of a normal evidence phase. I'm not opposed to an extension - we have already extended by 2 days and I've noted I have thought other extensions possible - but it seems premature to be extending by 5-10 days (a pretty huge range actually) at this point. More context/explanation would be needed. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I've messaged you in private. François Robere (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The drafters have considered your request, including the private information you shared, and aren't ready to grant it at this time. There is no obligation to be immediately present to reply to any counter-evidence or negative analysis which occurs. Owing to the summary style, earlier smaller focused evidence submissions, even that which haven't been perfected, are preferred to the larger later evidence submissions that many cases see. The drafters and clerks are also attempting to actively monitor pages to make sure things don't go too pear shaped, while also noting that because conduct at the case is inherently considered there is an incentive for everyone to be on their "best behavior" when participating. I know that might not be enough of reassurance for some but I do think it worth noting. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Mind that I did not only mean incivility, but also to the more civilized modes of incrimination one makes themselves vulnerable to if they choose to participate. In terms of time expenditure, I have already spend 10-15h over the past week and a half on this, and I'm nowhere near finished; at this rate, and given the external circumstances I've noted in my email, it's more likely than not that I won't be able to post everything I want ArbCom to know. François Robere (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Will you be able to complete your submission during evidence phase 2? Jehochman ^Talk 12:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jehochman: That I probably will, but in terms of the structure of the case, this is definitely "phase 1 evidence". François Robere (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I've posted the first of three ~1000 word batches on one subject; there are other subjects I want to raise, including one that hasn't been raised by anyone. I hope this gives a sense of the amount of time needed to finish all of this. François Robere (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to the other two drafts so they see this @Wugapodes @Primefac. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

And again stressing this coincides with some very time-consuming "real life" situation (or rather - situations). If you wish, I can elaborate more on this and on the nature of the evidence I wish to submit in private. François Robere (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Adversarial or Inquisitorial system of evidence gathering?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I know this is probably a stupid question that has already been answered somewhere, but I couldn't find an answer on the FAQ page. Is the evidence collection system adversarial or inquisitorial? If it is adversarial, ArbCom will use only the evidence presented by the parties. If it is inquisitorial, ArbCom is allowed to browse talk page discussions and article history to go looking for evidence on its own. More specifically: if the system is inquisitorial, ArbCom is allowed to use the G&K paper and check the diffs there provided and evaluate them on its own initiative. If the system is adversarial, the parties should copy and paste the G&K paper and submit it as evidence if they want it to be taken into account by ArbCom. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: After discussion with the other drafters, the simplest answer is that we have all read G&K (many of us more than once) but if you want us to really consider a claim, or to consider how it's incorrectly portrayed, you should put it right in front of us as evidence. — Wug·a·po·des 21:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I am still unclear on this. Are there claims made by G&K that you will consider as evidence without them having been explicitly introduced as evidence by a Wikipedia editor? If the answer is "yes", you should identify those claims so that we have a chance to respond to them. Zero^talk 01:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom has historically done their own diff digging, but you should not count on them to see everything. They are volunteers with lives outside Wikipedia. If you want to be sure they see something, post it. Additionally, if they find something on their own and plan to use it against you, they will give you a chance to respond. (Or at least they should.). If there’s something obvious that troubles you, you might want to address it proactively. This is not a court operating under strict rules of evidence. (These are my observations, which are not official policy.) Jehochman ^Talk 10:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

(I'm not a party.) There is a difference between diff digging and copying accusations from an external hostile source. It isn't possible to proactively respond to everything in that published paper. The participants in this case should be given the chance to respond to those accusations from the paper which the committee considers relevant and damaging. But they can't do that if they don't know which accusations they are. I'm assuming that the committee agrees, but a statement to that effect would be welcome. Zero^talk 12:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I have been conflicted about this general topic myself. Looking at another example along these lines, I find some of the conduct in the RSN discussions introduced into evidence below the expected standard (I haven't gotten to to the FTN discussions yet). On the one hand they have clearly been introduced into evidence. On the other hand, nothing specifically has been said about them. So have the people for whom those discussions reflect poorly on been given a chance to respond? Yes and no. The same is true of G&K. Clearly the parties know it's relevant; two of the editors named in the paper have (despite Zero's suggestion it's not possible) separately compiled comprehensive responses/analyses, as has a trusted (but not expert) non-editor/party. I think where I've landed is what Wugapodes mentioned above - if you want us to really consider a claim, or to consider how it's incorrectly portrayed, you should put it right in front of us - combined with using the questions/requests and the second evidence phase to give a reasonable chance to respond. But this won't be perfect, including the fact that it seems probable (though not definite) at this point that conduct during the case itself will get mentioned in an FoF and there are no plans to put that into the evidence summary. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Given that ArbCom initiated the case, and given that some individual Arbs made comments to some of the named parties during the acceptance phase, I'm guessing that the Arbs consider it to be in-scope for those things pointed out by Arbs to be considered, even if no one followed up by posting evidence about it. Put another way: named parties should not expect to be able to wikilawyer that a finding against them is improper simply because there wasn't a diff of it posted during Evidence Part 1. Am I reading that correctly? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, yes that's one way you could think about it. We're not going to pretend the article doesn't exist, so if there's a claim in there that an editor disagrees with, they should say so (following the guidance in the FAQ) rather than assume we will ignore it. — Wug·a·po·des 22:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

May I say that this seems entirely reasonable? The adversarial system makes sense when the point is to protect the rights and freedom of the parties by ensuring a fair trial. But here the goal is different, here it's about writing an encyclopaedia, and possibly an encyclopaedia that readers can trust because it is free from serious distortions. That's why we have a committee of experienced users that the community trusts. It would be absurd if they were prevented from reading the talk page discussions and the sources, including the G&K paper, and from browsing the article histories to check if there are mistakes, where they came from, why it was so difficult to correct them. It's their duty to do so, and since they are volunteer as us, the best we could do is to point in the right direction to lighten their burden. We can help them, but they must form their own opinions using whatever sources they deem fit for the purpose. IMHO evidence collection is 100% inquisitorial. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I assume you are aware of me "saying so". But I can't submit this as evidence outside of a link, due to word-size limit. Sometimes rebutting a single sentence of a claim requires bakcground explanation that is over the 1000 words limit... My understanding of the FAQ (also based on other comments here, including yours at #Discussing the G&K article above) is that the Committee is open to people "endorsing" parts of that article and submitting it as their own Evidence, which can ten be summarized and/or taken to analysis if anyone thinks it deserves further discussion. At which point, if something from that article appears in analysis, I could link to a particular part of my Responce that addresses those particular claims. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I've encouraged you to submit that before and will do so again now. You have 27 subsections under problems with the essay none of which are, from my quick glance, over 1000 words. So submitting them sequentially remains an option. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I keep misunderstanding something (and going by the sections above such as #Evidences of what?, #Evidence of what? & suggestions, #Discussing the G&K article and like I may not be the only one). My Response was written not for the ArbCom proceedings but for the public and in my view it exists in the same fuzzy dimension as that paper (essay).

FAQ states that "Of the concerns expressed in the paper, the Arbitration Committee will only be considering the conduct allegations." It is unclear to me what, if anything, in that paper, constitutes "conduct allegation". I assume that if someone finds a "conduct allegation" against me in that paper (essay) that they think are worth submitting to the ArbCom, they'd do so. This, as far as I know, hasn't happened yet. Majority of evidence submitted so far has not mentioned me at all. What has been summarized under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II_and_the_history_of_Jews_in_Poland/Evidence/Summary#Summary_of_evidence_involving_Piotrus seems fair and I have no objections to it. At this point I remain unsure what, if anything, I am accused of, and what, if anything, I am expected to reply to. My expectation is that if I am expected to reply to something, then a question to me would be posed in the Analysis section, either in a dedicated section analyzing some evidence, or in the "questions from Arbitrators" part on the bottom. I remain available to answer any questions posed to me, or accusations made against me -but, to repeat myself, I am not aware of either (per my awarness of what is in the summary/analysis parts of the ongoing proceedings; if I missed anything that you or another arbitrator believes I should reply to, please let me know, preferably with a link to a particular section where a concern related my "conduct" is presented). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC) PS. To clarify how I see the situation. The G&K paper is ~15k-20k words long. It is obviously too long to be submitted as evidence in its entirety, and arguably not all of it is even evidence-material (same is true for my Responce, and VM's substack). My understanding is that the Committee said "we acknowledge the paper/essay's existence, and are waiting for the community to see if any parts of it should be submitted to evidence; we are also open to any other evidence as usual". So far, regarding the former, I think only Gitz did something like this in his sections on "Postwar Property Restitution" and the Naliboki massacre (both concerning old events from ~2019). And as I said above, I remain unclear if anything in his evidence concerns my "conduct", so I am waiting to see how this gets summarized, and if any analysis of this is started (and if so, I may answer any questions anyone has regarding my actions, or address any summaries of it if I think they need a clarification). Additionally, I also note that the FAQ states that "The second phase will allow for editors to provide evidence in response to questions asked by Arbitrators on the Analysis page and to submit evidence whose purpose is to rebut evidence already submitted." so I am unclear whether I should even be replying to anything yet, since my understanding is that not all evidence submitted (like, most if not all of the G&K) paper is even considered as relevant, and, to repeat myself, I expect that the Arbitrators will clearly say at some point "after analyzing evidence A, B, and C, we are concerned about diff 1, diff 2, and the issue X. Parties, please reply". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I can definitely understand why you feel some uncertainty @Piotrus. So let me do my best to try to answer (without having spoken to the other drafters). There is abundant ArbCom precedent that deliberately contributing false, misleading, distorted, or very unfairly weighted content can rise to the level of user misconduct. You can see examples of the principles ArbCom has used in past cases about that misconduct to get an idea of what might be on the minds of people.

At a more basic level, here's an example of a clear conduct allegation from the paper Piotrus inserted unwarranted criticism into the Wikipedia biography of established Holocaust historian Antony Polonsky, a professor at Brandeis University and editor of the journal Polin, who publicly supported Jan T. Gross and opposed Chodakiewicz’s work. If true this would be a BLP violation. However, I will be considering recent evidence far more seriously than some of the very old criticism G&K used; the BLP example I quote above is from 2012 and so without someone showing a recent BLP violation (suggesting an ongoing issue) I'm not going to give it much/any weight. Something that may have been a problem in 2008 or 2012 or 2016 but is no longer a problem in 2020 suggests that there's not current misconduct needing a remedy. I would expect other drafters and arbs to feel similarly.

Since this comment you've submitted a lengthy evidence submission where you link to excerpts from your userspace as part of an overall allegation against Chapmansh. That will give it less consideration than if you'd submitted them on their own but I'm glad to see that step. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I understand the principle - I think everyone here can agree we don't want users who are "deliberately contributing false, misleading, distorted, or very unfairly weighted content".

Regarding the claim about Polonsky, please note this is explicitly addressed in my Responce at 6.3.

To use the Polonsky's example, why would my rebuttal of the cited allegation be given less weight if it's in my userspace? The quoted claim from the essay has not been entered into evidence by anyone, so why should I enter my rebuttal here pre-emptively? Perhaps my confusion is due to FAQ which states: How can I submit evidence from "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust" (link)? You may submit evidence which incorporates the work from the paper in the same way as any other evidence, by naming or linking to the paper and page number. My understanding is that until someone enters a claim from the paper into evidence, it is not something I need to address explicitly (particularly as I already addressed claims from the essay in said Responce). In other words, what confuses me is the implication of inequality: allegations from the essay don't need to be enterted into evidence, but rebuttals should be? It's also like an invitation for self-incrimination or self-critique: "tell us what you think you might have done wrong", or rather, "tell us what you think others may think you have done wrong and why they are wrong instead". This sounds like presumption of guilt. It is quite stressful to not know what, exactly, I am expected to rebut (which is why I appreciate the example related to Polonsky - it is a clear allegation that I can address, and did). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I initially read the FAQ the same way you did. One of my fellow drafters read it the opposite way. In more discussion between all 3 of us we landed on the standard that Wugs laid out and that I repeated above. I will see about updating the FAQ, though admittedly I have a few other priorities for this case first. I hope that answers your question and about why I've encouraged you to enter what's in your userspace formally into evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) Uh, there's a TON of claims in that article I disagree with. Am I supposed to write a whole article of my own addressing every single one of those? Am I suppose to try and read the Arbitrator's minds and guess which claims in the article they consider plausible and which I shouldn't bother addressing? There have been a very significant number of users who have pointed out problems with the article already and I don't know if the committee is taking these criticism to heart or not or whether there are questions or what. This seems extremely vague and arbitrary. Like it's going to be stuff not in evidence but you can make some decision anyway based on it and I will never know what?

If the case is about the paper then PLEASE, let's talk about the paper and it's content. But let's actually talk about it. Let's not have a whole case about some other stuff and then at the end you decide to make decisions based on something else entirely. If nothing else that seems extremely unfair and like you'd be wasting my, and others time, by having us address and reply to things which are barely going to be considered in final decisions (the evidence presented), when in actuality we should be spending time addressing other stuff, (like whatever the opinions of the papers contents are floating around in your head). Seriously, if you're going to just to do that, then just tell me right now and let's skip the dog and pony show of having "evidence phase" and "analysis phase" and etc etc and then at the end it will be "I read this in the paper and even though nobody brought it up to in the case I will base my decisions entirely on that". I mean... we're like 2/3 through the "Evidence Phase" and now one of you is basically telling (prompted by Gitz) us "no, no, no, this process doesn't actually work the way we led you to believe it works". What?

If nothing else that kind of approach is extremely disrespectful, not say unfair.

If there's something in the paper you want addressed specifically, then ask. Volunteer Marek 02:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This case is about evaluating whether there are serious conduct disputes the community (including this committee) has been unable to resolve in the topic areas of World War II history of Poland and the history of the Jews in Poland, broadly construed. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject, User:Wugapodes, you're the one who brought up the idea that "reports are being diverted to other venues like AN or ANI rather than AE (which we have just seen they are)" can you address my comment here and summarize my evidence here that this is absolutely not the case? Thank you. Volunteer Marek 02:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Marek, please be patient. There is a lot of evidence. Some of it is easy to summarise, some of it is not. Some of it just simply has yet to be summarised. Much like a submitted draft through AFC, evidence is not currently being summarised in a first-come first-summarised order. If we determine your evidence can and should be summarised, it will be. If we find problems with your evidence, we will let you know. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Just on my end I want to say that ArbCom cases can be extremely stressful and can make one over worried and even a bit paranoid - did anyone read what I wrote? Did I write something wrong that I shouldn’t have written? Did I annoy someone that I better not annoy? Is anyone listening? What’s going on?!!? I need ffeeeeedback or I get a little crazy... I hope that at least explains my seeming impatience, so my apologies in advance. Volunteer Marek 21:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I think needing that kind of reassurance is a natural feeling for someone at the center of a case. So it's understandable and it's why I've been working hard (as I do at all the cases I'm a drafter) to be on top of stuff from parties. I hope when those moments of doubt creep in you can use that knowledge to help relieve your anxiety. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You've already referred to my work as "insanely biased", so it's strange that you're actively asking me, specifically, to summarize your evidence. I have referred your request to my colleagues to handle as they see fit and will continue to leave it to them. — Wug·a·po·des 20:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Acting on Wugapodes request I have summarized the evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you and Wugapodes, while I do think you treated my evidence unfairly, I am cognizant of the fact that it’s not intentional and that disagreements happen. Volunteer Marek 21:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, yes that's one way you could think about it. We're not going to pretend the article doesn't exist, so if there's a claim in there that an editor disagrees with, they should say so (following the guidance in the FAQ) rather than assume we will ignore it. [45] This is ridiculously vague. Something either is evidence or it is not. How exactly is this "not going to pretend the article doesn't exist" going to work in practice? Everyone will spend ton of time submitting evidence in multiple phases, analyzing it, and in the end if some Arbcom members didn't get evidence they wished, then they will simply submit it themselves at Proposed Decision and use that to justify their decision? If some Arbcom member really wants to submit specific evidence from the G&K paper, maybe they should consider recusing from the case and join commoners in adding stuff to evidence section?--Staberinde (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The entire article is in the record. When it comes time to analyze the evidence and draw up findings, the article can be cited. I expect the arbitrators to focus on the evidence submitted primarily, but they can “take notice” of facts pointed out in the article. The parties will have a chance to review proposed findings and comment on them. I don’t expect anyone to be ambushed without having an opportunity to respond. (If that happens I will object loudly.) We are at the stage where parties are making affirmative presentations. Later, there will be an opportunity for rebuttals. It is not necessary to make presumptive rebuttals. The parties can wait to see proposed findings, and then respond. (It takes discipline to wait, but that’s usually best.) I agree with you and VM that it would be unreasonable to anticipate and rebut all possible proposals, but fortunately you don’t need to do so. I hope this relieves the stress some people are feeling. Jehochman ^Talk 12:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You are making assurances, but you are not on the committee. So far the committee members here have shown considerable reluctance to make assurances. I hope you can show me where I missed it, but we have not even received an assurance that claims made by G&K will be thoroughly investigated before being accepted. Moreover, the proposed findings stage happens after an internal discussion when arbitrators have mostly made their minds up. The vast majority of proposed findings are passed and those which fail on account of additional input from outside the committee are like hens' teeth if they exist at all. Your statement "they can 'take notice' of facts pointed out in the article" just confirms my fears. G&K's essay does not consist of facts, it consists of claims and many of those claims have been debunked. It seems to me that two external activists have been granted a status superior to any WP editor and I wonder if this ever happened before in arbcom history. Zero^talk 14:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This is no longer being productive. I read the statement as G&K's essay does not consist of facts, it consists of claims and many of those claims have been debunked, in my opnion. (emphasis added) which isn't a BLP violation. If there is a reliable source doing analysis with that conclusion please do post it. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Zero0000: please link the reliable source which debunks the claims made in the G&K essay. I haven't seen that one yet and it would be an important addition to my understanding of the situation (if the academic community has not only challenged the conclusions but debunked, a term normally reserved for pseudoscience, them thats highly relevant to this discussion). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Yeah, come on Horse, anyone with a modicum of knowledge of academia knows that that's not how it works so your request appears insincere - if there's a debunking in sources it's going to take some time for it to come out (the situation would be different had the journal done the academically responsible thing and offered a chance for affected parties to reply, but that would've gotten in the way of the activism, presumably). Also neither of the authors is an expert on Wikipedia and in fact at least one of them has made some blatantly ridiculous claims about it in the past (suggesting there are "hundreds" of Polish editors on Wikipedia, supposedly working for the Polish government). Volunteer Marek 16:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC) So you're saying that either an admin lacks a modicum of knowledge of academia or they blatantly violated BLP during an arbitration case? I don't find either of those to be likely, the most likely situation is that Zero0000 knows of a recent source which neither you or I know about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC) No, I am saying nothing of the sort and I don’t appreciate you trying to put words in my mouth. Seriously, when someone starts of their sentence with “so what you’re saying...” how come 90% it just means they’re about to grossly misrepresented someone? I think what I’m saying is pretty clear - your request for a source that “debunks” G&K is insincere and the fact that you’re making such a request kind of says more about your participation here than anything else. Volunteer Marek 17:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Those are the options, either a source exists or the claim about living people can't be made. I'm not trying to misrepresent anyone, if you think that I'm not editing in good faith or have ulterior motives for my participation here you know how to address that and this ain't it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Those are the options What? No. I have no idea where you’re getting any of this from. The actual option is “Horse is making unreasonable requests which they know can’t be fulfilled for very obvious reasons, such as, among others, the fact that the paper is barely a month old”. As an aside, taking “I’m not an expert in Wikipedia and have no idea how it functions” and calling that a “novel methodology” is kind of funny. Or it would be if the paper didn’t also facilitate harassment by Icewhiz (see Piotrus’ evidence). Volunteer Marek 17:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I'm sorry but I think you're being a bit hyperbolic about the whole thing. A request for a source with which to verify a BLP claim is never unreasonable, nor do I believe that it would be possible to both AGF and believe that the request can't be fulfilled. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Hyperbolic would be claiming that Zero saying that "G&K's essay does not consist of facts, it consists of claims and many of those claims have been debunked" is a BLP violation. Hyperbolic would be claiming that "debunked" can only take place in some external reliable source, and not here on WP. Hyperbolic would be twisting what Zero wrote into the straw man youd rather argue against than what he actually said. Maybe stop the hyperbole? Or maybe you should be added to the list of parties for tendentious editing during the case. Zero didnt make a "BLP claim", he said that claims in a paper have been debunked. Those claims in a paper are neither of the following: living or a person. nableezy - 18:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC) G&K is an abbreviation of the author's last names, not the name of the paper or the journal. Debunk is not the same thing as "has been disagreed with" or "some editors have raised issues with." It carries a very negative connotation. In addition " two external activists" doesn't appear to at all be referring to the article, its clearly a criticism of people for what they wrote not a criticism of what they wrote. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC) All of that is false except for G&K being an abbreviation for their last names. Repeatedly claiming somebody is making a BLP violation without evidence is casting aspersions and grounds for sanction. If you feel Zero has violated our BLP policy go report him. Id actually love to see the boomerang fly back on that one. Toodles. nableezy - 18:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Zero0000 can speak for themselves. They do not need you or VM to speak for them. I remain convinced that there is a real possibility that Zero0000 has access to a recently published source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Horse Eye Back: I remain convinced that there is a real possibility that Zero0000 has access to a recently published source. Volunteer Marek 18:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

two external activists have been granted a status superior to any WP editor + indef banned user Icewhiz. Volunteer Marek 16:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Arbs can and have submitted evidence while continuing to be active (unrecused) on the case. In fact in the very last case two arbs did so, including one of the drafters. ArbCom is not a court of law. In fact an upcoming paper that is being submitted to journals now (I have seen a pre-print) criticizes ArbCom for uneven outcomes while noting that ArbCom focuses on the the best outcome for the project as a whole in those decisions. Personally I find it hard to disagree with that criticism. According to policy, all evidence has to be submitted publicly (check) and be based on Wikipedia edits and log entries which the paper provides in its footnotes. It's been well over a month since the case reached a majority to hear the case (beyond the net 4 strictly necessary) and the second evidence phase will end over 4 weeks from now. In other words there's been a lot of time for parties to work on their rebutals to the case and I know I'm not crazy to think this is reasonable because 2 of them have already done extensive work on that. Now I do want to be procedurally fair to all parties and so some more narrowing/honing of the paper does seem reasonable and I expect us to discuss it no later than the pause after the first evidence phase. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• If Arbcom is looking for misbehavior in this difficult subject area during several years, I am sure they can find something and topic ban some contributors. But will this be helpful for the project? I just checked an article about this case [46], and it says: One thing the research didn’t discuss is what motivates these editors to invest so much time and effort into distorting Wikipedia. Klein said the omission was deliberate. Yes, indeed. What does "motivate these editors to invest so much time and effort..."? This is key question. And it has an obvious answer: this "group" are just ordinary contributors who are active in this subject area, pretty much as in any other area of WP. There is no conspiracy. The article also says: Not only was the website [WP] accused of being used to spread antisemitic propaganda, but it was also alleged to be vulnerable to large-scale manipulation by a small group of bad-faith actors. Yes, it is precisely the accusation by G&K. But, sorry guys, I do not see any antisemitic propaganda by WP in the current version of any WP page, even after checking every specific example by G&K. Yes, we do have many pages about antisemitic propaganda and tropes, but the tropes are clearly described as such. Yes, there is a general problem, but it is officially acknowledged in Wikipedia:General disclaimer. My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• To be clear, I do not know of a published source against G&K and everything I write has "in my opinion" attached to it. RS is a policy about writing articles, which is not what we are doing here. The nature of peer review is summarised in my preliminary statement[47] and that of Jeppiz[48]. Both of us are journal editors (for 29 years in my case). Peer review does not guarantee correctness; this is not a bold claim but just something that everyone in the business knows. In the case of articles written to prove a point, it is especially necessary to treat assertions as claims to be checked, not automatically as statements of fact. G&K are protagonists in a debate much wider than WP and they should be treated with the same caution as other protagonists are treated. Piotrus and VM have each posted lists of complaints and imo a large number of those complaints are valid. If even half of them are valid, that is more than enough reason to examine G&K's other claims with the same rigor. I will soon post a few more examples of G&K making claims not justified by the evidence. Zero^talk 01:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Is it really useful, is it really appropriate, is it really fair to narrowly cite very brief isolated excerpts from the G&K journal article without context —in this talk page section— as My very best wishes (MVBW) does above? I mean, are editors invited to reply with arguments that dispute these by providing more depth, more context, and again, doing so here, in this talk page section? And now further, after (edit conflict): is doing something similar as MVBW but more expansively, is that what Zero0000 intends on doing, yet again, here, in this talk page section? I honestly can't tell where he intends to post that (i.e. here, is here good, and so on). Either way though, hopefully we get less comparative lit ("protagonists," etc.) and more history from legit historians.

But, yes, peer review does lend further credence to the study of history and to Holocaust historiography, in particular. That demonstrated higher scholarly rigor is the reason WP:APLRS is even a thing. I'd also argue that it is telling that APLRS has faced erosion from many here who so adamantly oppose the content and conclusions of the G&K journal article. I've witnessed such erosion efforts first hand at WP:RSN#The_Volunteer_(book). And sure, there was an Icewhiz sock involved in that discussion (incidentally, the same one who tried getting me desysop'd for an unrelated matter), even as I cautioned VM against "using his specter as a blunt instrument" — I recognize the layers of irony, especially as I still stand by that. But regardless, I believe that at the heart of that discussion is the overriding aim to include a source which clearly fails the expectations in that aforementioned demonstrated higher scholarly rigor APLRS establishes. El_C 03:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Just a comment that AFAIK that particular RSN was reviewed by the Committee before as it led to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_118#Clarification_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland_(May_2021) which resulted in rewording of the APLRS. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The point is that the ethos behind this demonstrated higher scholarly rigor still stands, defined as: a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution). Its stands there as I hope it does here. El_C 04:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree, although that particular RSN was an interesting case, where we had a disagreement about whether the cited source was or wasn't high quality. IMHO this was heavily poisoned by involvement of he-who-shall-not-be-namaed, and their attempt to create more battleground and make proverbial mountains out of molehills. Fortunately, that sock got kicked out, and the aftermath is positive: The Volunteer (book) even got to a Good Article status, as did the related Witold Pilecki article, which even passed milhist A-class review. So all is good in the content-world, particularly now that he-who... has run out of socks to cause trouble (knock on wood...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh and it is well remembering that it was he-who-shall...'s sock that tried to abuse ALPRS by gutting an article (here - and see the summary used), removing ~50% of that former Featured Article, and generally uncontroversial content. And then he tried to sabotage attempts by others to fix that article, by, among others, trying to stir a contoversy about Fairweather's book. It's pretty clear who is and isn't WP:HERE. Hint: some people gut articles, harass other volunteers and create battlegrounds, and some people create Good Articles. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@El C - And sure, there was an Icewhiz sock involved in that discussion.. - not one, 2 Icewhiz’s sock puppets in that discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC) — GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs) is a sock puppet of Jacurek (talk · contribs).

If you say so. I'm not gonna cross reference users to find out which is the additional one you mean. Because, regardless, that still misses the point. Which was an attempt to include a work that fell short of being: "an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution." El_C 04:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That discussion in the Request for Clarification and Amendment was the one in which El_C compared [49] Poland to ... Iran, and claimed, without any evidence or basis, that "the Polish state" "espouses" "FRINGE content" (not sure what that means) to a great extent than ... Iran.

Putting aside the fact that discussion was about a book by a British author, an investigative reporter for the New York Times and Washington Post, who wrote the book in extensive consultation with numerous academics and peer reviewed by them, including Antony Polonsky, Robert Jan van Pelt, Nikolaus Wachsmann, Dariusz Stola, David Engel, Bernard Wasserstein, and Yehuda Bauer among others, none of whom are "Polish government affiliated" in the least bit (really, the opposite) and published by US and UK publishing houses, AND received acclaimed reviews from academics AND prestigious awards THAT kind of claim, comparing Poland to Iran, is what is actually extremely WP:FRINGE.

As a quick check just look Press Freedom Index. Poland ranks 65th, slightly below Italy and above Japan. It also ranks above Orban's Hungary (85th). And Israel, which ranks 86th. Iran ranks... 3rd from last, in 178th place. It's these kinds of irrelevant and displaced comparisons - which I don't know how to describe other than as "bizarre" and completely detached from reality - that apparently motivate the claim "WP:APLRS has been eroded". I honestly still don't understand how that is supposed to make sense - a book by a respected British author, published by British and American respected publishers, which won prestigious prizes and was peer reviewed by British, American and Israeli academics, is "suspect" because... Poland is, according to some, worse than Iran in terms of "espousing FRINGE content", whatever that means (whereas back in real world, it scores better on relevant metrics that several countries whose sources are never questioned).

I'm sorry but that's the opposite of "eroded". That's more like "misusing APLRS to justify someone's IJUSTDONTLIKEIT". Anyway, this was from 2021 and has been settled. Oh, and yes, the whole "Poland is worse than Iran" was indeed also an Icewhiz trope [50] (to be 100% clear - the Icewhiz claim I'm linking to is also totally ridiculous and it even made it into the Findings of Fact against him in the 2019 ArbCom case [51]).

(edit conflict) El_C this book WAS "academically focused book by a reputable publisher"! That was the whole controversy in the RSN discussion because some people tried to invent a thousand and one excuses why it wasn't where it very clearly was ('academic focused' is not the same as 'published by university press'). Peer reviewed by academics. Etc. etc. etc. Volunteer Marek 04:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The fact remains that Jack Fairweather (writer), as JBchrch notes: is a journalist who is not a specialist of the subject and has no academic credentials in that specific area. And that The Volunteer (book) was published by Custom House, as self described curated line of thought-provoking nonfiction and distinguished literary fiction that publishes bestselling authors as well as talented new voices who seek to shape the conversation about where we’ve been and where we’re going, and tell transformative, emotionally-authentic stories.

If there is evidence that that book was, as VM claims, "peer reviewed" (emphasis added) by any of those scholars, then, I at least, would like to see evidence confirming that such a process had been undertaken. If, however, that consultation consisted of asking them some questions that were not decisive to the book's main thesis and thrust, then I'd say that "peer reviewed" it was not.

As for the above evidence submission by VM concerning myself—it misrepresents what I said about Iran, which was that the Polish state promotes more WP:FRINGE Holocaust narratives than Iran does. I stand by that and I challenge that their Holocaust law is testament to this. El_C 05:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@El C - This is exactly what you said --> The Polish state is very committed. Other countries also espouse WP:FRINGE content, too. But a country, say, like Iran (twice the population of Poland), for example, does so to a far lesser extent, I find. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC) — GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs) is a sock puppet of Jacurek (talk · contribs).

Regardless, it should be clear from the context that I meant FRINGE concerning the Holocaust, specifically. Anyway, Iran here serves as a red herring and a distraction, because obviously, even now, Poland is a far more normative country than theocratic Iran. By a lot. By a lot a lot. But again, when it comes to the study of the Holocaust, specifically, Poland does promote more FRINGE. Iran also promotes some Holocaust FRINGE, to be sure, just not as much (for obvious reasons).

I confess to not being a good enough compendium on Icewhiz—even though, as mentioned, I might possibly be the admin who has blocked more of his socks than any other—to even be aware that he mentioned Iran in that sense, or any sense, for that matter. But seeing as VM doesn't even understand that my comparison was strictly limited to the study of the Holocaust, I doubt it aligns. El_C 05:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 1. The fact remains that whether a book by a British writer, published by a British and American press meets APLRS has nothing to do with whether Poland or Iran or Israel has more press freedom or promotes fringe views.

2. That journalist - a highly respected investigative reported for Washington Post and New York Times with years of experience - wrote the book in consultation with academics and had the work reviewed by over a dozen academics (see the introduction to the book). APLRS does NOT say that only sources by individuals "with academic credentials in the area" are allowed. Note also that the whole discussion involved a ton of goal post-shifting: other sources removed or ones that editors (including, yes, Icewhiz sock puppets) tried to reject included Timothy Snyder and Marco Patricelli, both authors who ARE academics with specializations in that specific area (this was done by trying to re-define what "specific area" meant, among other "tactics"). Like, these discussions were never really about APLRS - that was just an excuse to remove sources per WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, or, more generally stir up trouble in the topic area by Icewhiz socks, create controversy, so that then "diffs" could be "harvested" so that then WP:AE reports could be filed. Hey! Kind of similar to exactly what's happening now!

3. Are you saying Custom House is NOT a "reputable publishing house"? Since when?

4. The fact that you're trying to re-define "peer review" also illustrates the point. Why would an author ask questions "not decisive to the book's main thesis and thrust" (which was simply to retell the story that's been well documented by largely unknown in the west before) and what does that have to do with peer review? Is there some one and only definition of "peer review" that I'm missing? Actual peer review varies from discipline to discipline, journal to journal, book to book, book to journal, sub field to sub field. And as Zero pointed out, peer review, is not a full proof guarantee of quality (honestly, as much as it is fetishized very often, particularly outside of natural sciences, it just means "you review and publish my works in your journal and I will review and publish your works in my journal, provided there's no glaring errors"). APLRS also doesn't require books to be "peer reviewed", only journal articles (which makes sense - in economics for example, books are NOT considered to be peer-reviewed at all which is why they don't usually count for tenure)

5.Polish state promotes more WP:FRINGE Holocaust narratives than Iran does I'm sorry but that's just an utterly absurd notion. Iranian government does outright Holocaust denial [52] [53] [54] [55] (and it's trivially easy to throw up dozens more links). Polish government does nothing of the sort. Even that stupid "Amendment" (and it is really stupid) does not apply to "artistic and academic activity" and has never actually been enforced (last I checked) mostly because it's hopelessly vague in other respects and was changed a bunch after objections. See also [56]. It's mostly ideology-signaling by populist politicians. The comparison between Poland and Iran, in addition to having very little to do with this RSN discussion, is in fact extremely FRINGE.

6. And again, I have no idea what any of that has to do with a British book by a British author. The argument seems to be "Poland's government did something bad so I can remove any source, even if it's not Polish, which makes some Polish person look good because... reasons". Volunteer Marek 06:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, having been personally involved in peer-review of books for academic publishers, I can say it is even less about fact-checking than it is for journal articles. Time is money for book publishers and peer-reviewers are only given a short window, far too short for them to do substantial fact-checking of a book-sized work. Zero^talk 06:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

VM, can you not condense better, more concisely? You're adding so much text to this section. Anyway, I didn't say that Iran's promotion of FRINGE Holocaust isn't more egregious—it is, of course, far more so (indeed, straight Holocaust denial). Rather, what I said was that they don't do it as much, which makes sense, as they're far less invested in the subject (i.e. to the extent of even enacting legislation that's unprecedented in liberal democracies towards that end). El_C 06:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Replying to something earlier, I never proposed to put examples of G&K's work here. I'll put them on the Evidence or Analysis pages as soon as I find the hours that I don't have. And, El_C, the reason I am opposed to G&K's claims being taken on faith is that I have read their essay and understand it. That, and only that, is why I am bothering with this case about a subject I don't edit in. Zero^talk 06:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Zero, well, the where was unclear, as that was happening by MVBW directly above your post. Anyway, I never mentioned accepting anything "on faith," but seeing as this is nonetheless a journal article that has gone through peer review — I don't think that (PR) should be diminished, either. Including by labeling its contributing scholars "protagonists," etc. El_C 06:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Whenever bitter debate about WW2@Poland comes up (in the Israel press, for example) there is a fine chance that Grabowski is there as a major participant. And not only opposed to Polish historians, either, but sometimes to fine Jewish historians. So he doesn't just write history, he engages energetically in public debate. I.e., he is a protagonist just as his opponents are protagonists. As for Klein, I never heard of her before but she has thrown in her lot with Grabowski. Grabowski's history books and articles, of which I read several, meet our RS standards, but his essay with Klein is not about history and not a work of scholarship. Zero^talk 07:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The point is that it went through peer review, so calling G&K "protagonists," then doubling-down on it, I feel works to diminish rather than addressing the content on its merits. El_C 08:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is Grabowski going after well respected Israeli historian Daniel Blatman [57], calling him a "Willing Poster Boy for Poland's Brutal Distortion of the Holocaust". Blatman is an expert in this topic, more established than Grabowski (he was working on this topic while Grabowski was still doing work on Native Americans in colonial Canada) and head of the Institute for Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Notice the rhetorical click-baity hyperbole "brutal". There's more hysterical rhetoric like that in Grabowski's article, for example accusing Blatman of making a "wild attack" on Yad Vashem (he did no such thing, just criticized some Israeli government policy regarding the institute) or accusing him of "focusing his anger" on a particular person (there was nothing "angry" about what Blatman wrote - pretending that Blatman was "angry" is a way for Grabowski to condescend and belittle him). What was Blatman's cardinal sin for Grabowski? He agreed to head a museum (of the Warsaw Ghetto)in Poland. More recently Grabowski has been attacking the Israeli ambassador to Poland, Yacov Livne on twitter [58]. Why? The ambassador had the audacity to go visit a Polish museum (different one). Shortly before that he was attacking (of course not "brutally" or "wildly", only people Grabowski disagrees with do that /s) the Emanuel Ringelblum Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw [59] because it had an exhibition celebrating Jews who fought for Polish independence, which in Grabowski's view is "promoting assimilationism" and supporting "Jews abandoning their culture and language" (I don't think the exhibition does anything like that). A few months back he was going after Magdalena Gawin [60], a scholar who's an expert on history of Polish feminism and the link between eugenics and totalitarianism and the Pilecki Institute she's associated with, because, again, Gawin and the Institute took part in celebrating a Pole who tried to help Jews during World War 2. And so on. He does this kind of thing all. the. time. "Protagonist" is very much an apt description. Volunteer Marek 08:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, I write 30 words, VM replies with 300. It just is really challenging to follow in a back and forth threaded discussion, I'm sorry. El_C 10:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

In any case, VM writes at considerable length, about a passing comment of mine, which he continues to misrepresent. He then goes on further, again at some length, to matters scarcely related to the subject at hand, such as press freedom indexing, and so on. Or, he says that the book in question was "peer reviewed" (←quote), then later he states that "books are NOT considered to be peer-reviewed" — right, but it was him who said the book was PR, not me. But this is the thing: VM adds so much text, and he splits the discussion in all these disparate directions, which I feel has the effect of drowning the discussion, in an almost filibuster-like way. I, at least, am having a hard time keeping up with, not to mention responding to it all. El_C 08:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you know WHY I write at considerable length? It's so that people won't be able to twist my words or misrepresent what I say - a habit picked up editing contentious areas on Wikipedia for years. *I* am not misrepresenting you. If someone writes "Iran espouses fringe views to lesser extent than Poland" than any normal person will read that as "this person is saying that Poland is worse than Iran". They're not going to read your mind and guess that by saying "to lesser extent" you meant "less frequently but more egregiously". OTOH, *you* are indeed misrepresenting me. When I wrote ""books are NOT considered to be peer-reviewed"" very obviously I was not referring to ALL books. How do we know that? Oh yeah, because what I actually wrote was "in economics for example, books are NOT considered to be peer-reviewed". Nice clipping of the quote there El_C, in order to pretend that I was contradicting myself whereas in fact I was just making the point that "peer-review" has different meanings in different disciplines. Please don't do that. Volunteer Marek 08:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Whatever the reason, it comes across as neither direct nor concise. I feel like I explained the Iran-Poland quote snippet logically and concisely, but I don't know why you felt it was even germane when discussing that book, in the first place. Why you can't stay focused on a topic. As stated, above, you said that this book was "peer reviewed," which I asked that you prove. You did not. So you can keep saying "please don't do that" all you want, but it just feels like projection and misdirection at this point. El_C 10:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

You are the one who brought up that RS discussion about Volunteer (book) and gave it as an example of supposedly APLRS being "eroded". But it's actually an example of APLRS being abused and WP:GAME'd under various pretenses (since other scholars like Snyder and Cesarani were also being removed for arbitrary and bad faith reasons). One of these pretenses is people- including you - making the argument that because there's something wrong with the current Polish government, they get to remove any source they want if it says something positive about Poles. Even if that source is actually British. Because it all supposedly falls under this big umbrella of supposedly "Polish government espousing fringe views". Even if the source is actually British. So a very good example, just not in the way you want it to be.

And you still shamelessly misquoted me. If I had done something like that at, say, WP:AE, I'd probably get sanctioned. But hey, "rules for thee but not for me", right? Volunteer Marek 17:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

El_C, Of course the contents are what is important, but the content is where the problem lies. You should have paid more attention when you found that your own cameo appearance was not correctly reported. That example by itself is not important, but the fact that the same practice of giving the worst possible interpretation to every event, with no mention of other possibilies, is characteristic of the entire work is very important. I'm not asking you or ArbCom to accept my overall opinion without evidence, but when charges are made by anyone about actions on Wikipedia it is not unreasonable to ask for those charges to be properly checked before action is taken on account of them. Zero^talk 09:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

My own cameo appearance, singular? You said you read the article. No, I was mentioned multiple multiple times throughout that piece, and in one single instance it failed to provide context about something I said. All other mentions of myself were accurate. El_C 10:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The single appearance you brought up yourself. When you wrote something that suits their case, they quote you approvingly, and when your action could be interpreted negatively, that's what they do. The desired conclusion drives everything. No analysis, no open-ended discussion, no alternative explanations, no self-questioning, nothing. Sorry, but I know real scholarship when I see it.

The list of controversies involving Grabowski that VM posted is what I meant by "protagonist". Like the word or not as you please, it is a plain fact that few historians are so often involved in public slanging matches. This current event is also one of those public slanging matches. Recently I came across a statement by former arbitrator DGG that explains the nature of writing in this area quite well and I invite everyone to read it. "the parts of the academic world dealing with the humanities and social sciences live not by consensus, but by controversy" ... "It's clear to everyone with even remote interest that publications in this field are often affected by ideology" ... and so on. (I'm not commenting on the specific issue in that former case and I support minimum sourcing standards.) Zero^talk 11:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

And I know polemics and reductionism when I see em. Painting with a very wide brush, very negtively. It is what it is. I, at least, call it for what it is. El_C 17:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• In order to make WP look bad, G&K resorted to a simple trick: they criticize poorly written old versions of pages that were fixed long time ago, deeds by banned users and those who realized themselves they should not be editing around here, etc. This can be easily fixed by making a time cutoff for the evidence, let's say one year (or another reasonable time frame) and simply not considering anything older. Some of the events currently on Evidence page (and in article by G&K) are more 10 years old. But this is up to arbitrators of course. My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

"Simple trick," really? That's the level of discourse? G&K vs. WP, Us vs. Them? That said, it's curious you mention deeds by banned users and those who realized themselves they should not be editing around here, as the G&K piece highlights that very thing. But as a 'realization' that's the product of attrition, of being grinded down. Consider this very discussion as an example. I asked the arbitrators something about your post way above. For the next several hours, the discussion consisted of the following participants: 1. VM going on about the Freedom indexing (etc.) red herring, and at considerable length; 2. GCB tersely helping with that (red herring); 3. Piotrus mildly; 4. Zero with G&K is bad scholarship, but substance later, polemics now; 5. And finally you, MVBW, with the "simple trick." So, 5 of you vs. my sole self. Which is no simple trick, but unintentionally quite telling. El_C 17:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe consider the possibility that what you're saying is simply wrong and people - some of whom are being attacked and harassed here so they're feeling a bit defensive - who don't bring in your biases to the conversation, see right through it. Volunteer Marek 17:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Five-versus-me = my biases that are seen right through, are simply wrong, etc.? Well, as a retort, at least it's a mercifully brief. El_C 18:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The appeal of evidence summary

I would like to appeal this evidence summary - the summary should mention that nearly all those sock-puppets were either confirmed or suspected to be of Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and none have been related to other named parties of these proceedings. Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC) — GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock puppet of Jacurek (talk · contribs).

After talking with Wugapodes I have adjusted the summary phrasing. I didn't include the comment about parties. No indefinitely blocked editor was made a party and it would be unusual for someone to have blocked puppets but still be editing such that they'd be a party here. Barkeep49 (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 Thank you, however:

• I would like to point out that your adjustment says many othem sockpuppets of Icewhiz. This is inaccurate.

The word many should be changed to most

39 - of those sock puppets are of the globally banned Icewhiz

1 - is of Icewhiz or Yaniv

5 - are of other banned users

(there is also a typo othem should be of them) GizzyCatBella🍁 09:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC) — GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock puppet of Jacurek (talk · contribs).

@GizzyCatBella I've made the change. I found nearly all - the phrase you used - to not be accurate; I'd expect 95 or likely 98% of socks to be one person (not the 87% we have here) in order to characterize it as nearly all. But most is at least as accurate as many and if you find it more accurate I'm happy to do that. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Appeal of Jan T. Gross edit summary

Regarding "Use of Jan T. Gross as a source" (here and in my section). Not a big issue, but see comment by User:Tryptofish here - I agree that the wording here is a bit unclear. I am unsure if the entire part but expressed some concerns about the neutrality of the source and that Gross is not the final authority, just one of many voices in the ongoing discussion, and that some other reliable sources have criticized some of his findings (which doesn't mean he cannot be cited and considered reliable!) (no specifics about the reliable sources who criticized were given). is relevant to anything? Specifics were given in this diff, if that needs clarifying. From my perspective, it was Xx236 who criticized the book, while I said that the source was reliable (more than once), and crucially, Chapmansh agreed with me - see my comment in the analysis for diffs. Perhaps replacing the quoted part with "and Chapmansh agreed with Piotrus" would be better? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the parenthetical with this added background. FWIW, a real factor in my thinking was that it appeared you were trying to have it both ways - bolstering Xx236's contention that it wasn't reliable while also stating that you thought it could be used. Given that Xx236's conduct was found troubling enough for a community topic ban this seemed worth noting. However the link above certainly provides backing for the idea that it has been criticized. But also I want to note that I debated whether to summarize this at all as a RSN discussion from 2018 failed my "recentish" test. Ultimately the additional context around Chapmansh's editing pushed me towards doing so but I don't give tons of weight to something this old and the additional background information makes clearer that this was not what you were doing. Courtesy ping to Tryptofish. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, both of you. I think I'm satisfied with where this stands. I do think that the evidence, when read in full, contradicts the idea that Piotrus was in any way trying to bolster Xx236's position. Indeed, it looks to me more like Xx was arguing against Piotrus ([61]). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

In the fuller context I would characterize it as "Piotrus is arguing for his own thinking" rather than for/against anyone. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That's quite reasonable, of course. And I'll point out that, at RSN, Piotrus' own thinking was in accordance with the overall consensus, whereas neither Icewhiz nor Xx were. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 Thank you. I just wonder if the context that 1) Gross' book was criticized by Xx236 a non-party editor 2) Champansh agreed with me on the talk page and 3) later thanked me for defending her student wouldn't be relevant there as well? 1) seems like the missing context in between the first two sentences of the summary. Ps. I've noticed recent comments by Xx236 and there is no need to mention him here by name if he finds it stresfull. I've adjusted my suggestion for 1) accordingly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on my reading of what happened, I think Piotrus is justified in arguing that his contributions at the time were both in accordance with consensus and, significantly, received positively by Chapmansh. Based on what I said in my analysis of my evidence, it's complicated to characterize who Chapmansh agreed with, as she agreed, in a single comment ([62]), with Piotrus, Icewhiz, and the non-party editor (none of whom agreed with one another). I do think there is a disconnect between what Chapmansh said at the time, and the way the editors are portrayed in the G&K paper. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 This is not urgent, but I wonder if you saw my question above? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus feel free to submit it as evidence (it would be eligible for phase 2 so no rush). Barkeep49 (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Added diffs to evidence. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

HEB evidence

Two diffs of mine were submitted by HEB, to illustrate that others had raised concerns about retribution. When Chapmansh was added as a party I decided to stop contributing to the 'pedia, taking it as a sign that the values of free flow of information that is the reason why I signed up to this project are no longer dominant. I didn't make a big post about it or make a stink over it, I just stopped. I don't enjoy drama and I prefer to just walk away. But I am following the case regardless. I just want to offer that if anyone needs to verify the history I mentioned in the diffs I'm willing and happy to disclose my account from back then to any arb if contacted privately. It's not something I hide out of shame- I left it in good standing, was a Wikipedian of the day with a single digit number and my block log has only one brief 3RR hit. I only refrain from doing it publically because I had photos of me drunk with Jimbo on my userpage and as I've aged I've become more protective of the divide between my on-line and off-line life. --(loopback) ping/whereis 00:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Barkeep49: this part of my evidence appears to not have been included in the summary, would you mind remedying that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would classify this in a similar category to the sections collapsed as "Not summarized yet. Might be summarized if it connects to future submitted evidence". If another arb/clerk feels that there is something that should be included they are welcome to add it. There is already an analysis section and if you'd like to talk about it there you can. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

My evidence on Postwar Property Restitution and Naliboki massacre

The evidence I submitted on the 21 March (Postwar Property Restitution) and on the 27 March (Naliboki massacre, 2019-2019) has not yet been summarised and I was wondering if there's a reason for this other than the fact that the drafting arbitrators are very busy. Since my evidence does not relate to my position, if it is not deemed useful to the case I am happy to waive the submission. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

No reason other than we're busy. Do you have further evidence you're waiting on us for? Barkeep49 (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I have further evidence, it's almost ready and I just need to shorten it a little. I can either wait for you to summarise the old evidence and then submit it, or submit it now, but in that case I would exceed the word and diff limit to an unprecedented extent. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You're around 650 words now in that section. If you'd like to have another 1000 on top of it that's fine. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, done [63]. See History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II, 2021-ongoing. I have used 93 71 words more than the 1,000 you allowed me. If this is a problem, please let me know and I'll remove a couple of quotations. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC); edited 10:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, may I submit further evidence or, given the backlog in the process of summarising, would you rather I wait or refrain from doing so? I'd like to respond to Chumchum7 evidence on me. Before the end of Phase 1, I would also like to respond to VM's evidence on harassment: my responses have been posted in the Analysis page, but perhaps they should be published as evidence (if that makes any difference to Arbs, which I don't know). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 rebuttals can be done during the second evidence phase. So if you have new evidence areas that you want to get in that would be higher priority than rebuttals. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49. Chumchum7's user page reports that they are a WP:VALIDALT account as disclosed to and confirmed by an administrator with WP:CHECK capabilities. Presenting evidence before ArbCom with an alternative account might prevent WP:SCRUTINY and I'd like Arbs to verify that this was done correctly, according to policy, before submitting my rebuttal. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, I don't want to be pushy, but I'd like to have an answer to my question. I believe that on it.wiki a sockpuppet would not be allowed to participate in a user conduct dispute: the local equivalent of WP:SCRUTINY would prevent this kind of contribution from an alternative account. But I don't know how it works on en.wiki and I'd like you to instruct me in this regard. I would find it weird that in the future I might participate in discussions and collaborate with a user who unbeknownst to me presented evidence against me before the ArbCom: I would miss an important piece of information to understand and evaluate our interactions. Therefore, before I post my "rebuttal" to Chumchum7 I'd like to know if their evidence is admissible, that is, if Arbs will take it into account in any way. If so, I will post my reply, otherwise I would like their text removed from the evidence page and from the evidence summary page. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to ping @Chumchum7. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 apologies for not being more communicative. There had been some behind the scenes attempts to determine if Chumchum was following enwiki policy after they posted evidence. After your last message this effort resumed more seriously but took a few days to bring to conclusion. Based on the information I learned earlier today I don't see that Chumchum is violating any enwiki policies with their participation in this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

François Robere's evidence

Moved from #Editors' conduct on main page

@François Robere, I have added diffs where appropriate, though I would ask that you add some specific/pertinent diffs for the evidence that spans multiple pages. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Let me echo and extend Primefac's message. As I read this evidence, at the moment the only elements that I would summarise would be the bullets under editor conduct because, not surprisingly, those are what fits in the scope ("Conduct of named parties in the topic areas"). Now there's a lot there to summarise but also did want to note my agreement with what Primefac wrote above. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac: That's nice of you. This is just meant as summary and background material; I fully intend on elaborating on specific items later. May I exclude this from my overall word counts for the time being? François Robere (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to exclude anything I added in the parentheses, yes. Primefac (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Just shifting this to the talk page since it's turning into a discussion. Primefac (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

What I actually meant was to count it separately from specific sections, or perhaps separate the count for "background" and "content" from the rest. After the background and summary I'll try and section diffs to 1000 word chunks, if that's alright with you. François Robere (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Please confirm? François Robere (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@François Robere sorry what do you want me to confirm? Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: What I actually meant was to count [the background and summary] separately from specific sections... After [that] I'll try and section diffs to 1000 word chunks, if that's alright with you. François Robere (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thanks. I'm waiting on the current batch to be summarized before posting the next. François Robere (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

You're third on my "hope to summarize" after finishing the History of the Jews in Poland and summarizing my own section. But as I've had zero time to work on summarizing this week, I'm not sure I'll get to this before the deadline. I don't know about hte other two drafters but you might just want to go ahead? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Question that can be asked at analysis

@François Robere: Just noting that I did say that, and stated it as a general principle, which I still think is a systematic problem that Wikipedia has. So fair use, but I had a different situation in mind when I said it. Maybe it *is* true generally, though, as you aren't the only editor for whom that apparently rang true. I would like, if you would, for you to explain why you thought that some content at Collaboration with the Axis powers ca. 2019 I guess, constituted blood libel. (I am not disputing the statement, but could you please explain it?) Between February and March. Briefly. Is that what all the fighting was about? Elinruby (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC) @Elinruby: this question should go in analysis where it can be seen more widely. This page is meant for procedural (not substantive) discussion about the evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Request regarding the Use of Kot (1937) at Paradisus Judaeorum summary

This is just a minor issue, but regarding the final quotations from User:Chumchum7 (whom I'll ping in case they'd like to comment themselves), I'd like to suggest that his comments Most importantly, does anyone disagree with Piotrus that we are not citing him for anything that would be remotely considered controversial or such ? and later As for Kot, I think the case for exclusion would need to be taken up at WP:RS/N where anyway I would expect it to be retained as explained above. are quite relevant and that it would be valuable to add them to the summary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Wugapodes Just a ping - I think it was you who summarized this evidence? This is not urgent, but just want to make sure this is on your radar. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Piotrus, as you're probably also aware there are a lot of pages to keep track of. I'd prefer if you could say more about the value you see in them? I'm not particularly concerned about the substance, that's why I didn't really go in to your or Sarah's replies to Chumchum's questions, let alone the actual questions. The suggestions seem to relate mostly to the substance of the dispute which is my reservation, and I'm not clear on how these quotes relate to conduct earlier in the dispute? — Wug·a·po·des 23:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Wugapodes You are likely right this is content-related; my thought was that since the summary heading is "Use of Kot (1937) at Paradisus Judaeorum", it might be somewhat relevant to context to note that (in my reading of their comments above) Chumchum7 agreed that the source is acceptable in this context (someone reading the summary might get the impression that nobody supported me and Nihil Novi in that discusion, while in fact the opposite was true). Majority of that summary seems to be about that content issue, and a reader might get the impression the consensus was against the use that source, where in fact I believe the case was to the contrary (that source also passed a Good Article review). PS. Here's a diff to a comment by non-party User:Darwinek from the same discussion: [64] that may also be worth noting for the same reason. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see how the title can give that impression; I've changed it. I've also added the first suggested quote. I'm still not clear on the value of the second; where the source discussion takes place doesn't seem particularly relevant to the prior conduct. To maybe give some insight into the summary itself, while the dispute was about the use of the source, the point of the summary is to elucidate the conduct in the discussion. For example, while the summary of the 25 March thread is a little in the weeds, it's necessary to understand the 29 March statements. In that thread you say Nobody has ever pointed out that any of Kot's scholarly works have issues with anti-semitism. and to evaluate whether that's "stonewall[ing]" (as alleged in the evidence being summarized) or "like gaslighting" (as Sarah alleged in the discussion), then we need to actually see whether that was something alleged in the prior discussion. That's the lens I'm looking at it through, but I can see how it might seem content focused if approached differently. — Wug·a·po·des 06:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Wugapodes Thank you. I think you correctly point out a major issue in that discussion. As I indeed said, Nobody has ever pointed out that any of Kot's scholarly works have issues with anti-semitism; this has been true then and is still true now (just in case this isn't crystal clear to anyone, the criticism of Kot relates to statement or statement she made in his capacity as a politcian, not as a historian). The only assessment anyone has found so far of the 1937 work in question is "solid" (that's from Joanna Tokarska-Bakir (2004) - see full quotation/ref at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II_and_the_history_of_Jews_in_Poland/Analysis#Analysis_of_Use_of_Kot_(1937)_at_Paradisus_Judaeorum, and note that Tokarska-Bakir is a modern expert on antisemitism, yet she calls Kot's very work on this topic "solid" in the context of discussing this term, and cites Kot's views approvingly). Yet Sarah kept extending that discussion on an on for several weeks, refusing to engage with such crucial on-topic arguments - this even led to the failure of a Good Article nomination. As I have written in the same diff you quote me from, following that very sentence in fact: I have nearly completed my review of his biographies [for Good Article on Kot]), and the only criticism of his scholarly works I've seen is minor and technical; mainly, that in his discussions on reformation he focuses too much on the material angle (ex. economy of the Church), and too little on the theological. Nobody has ever suggested that his scholarly works are anti-semitic, or problematic in any form when it comes to Polish-Jewish relations or such. There is zero evidence that Sarah has done any serious research on this, she just kept coming back to the one or two passing descriptions on Kot as politician that IMHO represent FRINGE view of his person. .

Btw, reading WP:STONEWALL, I think the second quote, plus the quote/diff from Darwinek, is relevant in estabilishing consensus. Stonewalling - a term I wasn't very familiar with until our discusison right now - is defined there as "repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree". Kot's reliability and relevance was supported by me, Nihil novi, Darwinek, Chumchum7 and plausibly, by the Good Article reviewer who never had any issues with it (and GA review requires a source review). It was challenged only by Sarah and K.e.coffman, whose views are cited. That's why I think the other quote by Chumchum7, plus the quote from Darwinek, are relevant, in estabilishing the conensus that Sarah challenged. At least she never attempted to remove the source from the article (the version using Kot has always been the WP:STABLE version), so this wasn't even in the BRD territory - we just had a very long, and arguably, mostly pointless discussion about whether Kot was an antisemite or not. And I got Kot's article to a Good Article status after all the related reading, so in the end, Wikipedia did benefit from that (my deep dive into sources about Kot begun as an attempt to investigate whether he has been criticized as an antisemite outside one or two passing mentions cited in that discussion, and my conclusion is that no, he hasn't; in fact we have more passing mentions that explicity say he wasn't an antisemite...). But ideally, I'd prefer to spend my time writing content, not having to deal with people asking the same question or making the same argument again and again and not listening to any replies. But since Sarah is not a party, nor cannot be, I am not sure if there's much point in revisiting this discussion from ~3 years ago; it's not like there's much point in issuing any findings related to her behavior back there (which, btw, included her ignoring my request to REFACTOR her personal attack against my person). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Question

@Wugapodes, Primefac, and Barkeep49: Am I permitted to deliver evidence against the editor who has a 2-way IBAN with me and is a party to this case? Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC) — GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock puppet of Jacurek (talk · contribs).

@Wugapodes, Primefac, and Barkeep49: - Folks, I really need that to be clarified soon, please. There are only two days left to submit evidence. I can not afford (health issues) to spend time documenting everything, only to find out later that I'm not permitted to provide evidence. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC) — GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock puppet of Jacurek (talk · contribs).

Because you are both named parties, there is thinking that WP:BANEX applies @GizzyCatBella and so you can present that evidence (and likewise that person can rebut). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 Thank you, I’ll present it in with stages (as my time allows). - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC) — GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock puppet of Jacurek (talk · contribs).

It's worth noting that the way this is done will be considered. So if I am IBAN'ed with Foo and present as evidence "Foo is the biggest jerk ever on Wikipedia (diff 1), (diff 2)", I'm not going to be blocked for it but the arbs will consider it when thinking about what FoF and remedy are appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Time period

A lot of the evidence being presented is from 2019 or earlier (basically Icewhiz disputes). Is this evidence going to be considered? Should editors bother presenting evidence of 2018/2019 behavior by listed parties, NOT mentioned by G&K? Volunteer Marek 21:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

See FAQ, it may be relevant. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Specifically, In evaluating the evidence, the committee will place much greater weight on more recent events. However older evidence will be accepted and may be used in the proposed decision, especially when considering if issues have persisted over a long period of time. Jehochman ^Talk 01:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I realize that but since most of the paper is 2018-2019 Icewhiz stuff, am I expected to present evidence I presented in the 2019 ArbCom case? Go through all the old disputes from four years ago? Spend time debunking claims made about diffs from 2016? The longer the relevant time span the more stuff there is to cover so just saying "maybe" isn't all that helpful. Volunteer Marek 01:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The more recent the better. We are looking for continuing disruption in the topic area, so old disputes that were settled a six years ago (or otherwise discarded) are less relevant than something that happened six months ago. Remember that there is a second evidence phase, so if we determine that we need more context or background on a subject, we will ask for it. Primefac (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Rebuttals to Chumchum7 and Volunteer Marek

If I'm not mistaken, I should publish the rebuttals in my own evidence section, but since my evidence submissions have not yet been summarised, I would exceed the word and diff limit if I did so. What should I do? More specifically:

1. I would like to submit this Response to Chumchum7. Should Chumchum7 be added as a party? Note that I'd be happy to drop this submission if either Chumchum7 would self-revert and withdraw their submission or Arbs would collapse it as clearly irrelevant and wrong.
2. I would also like to know from you whether my replies to the evidence presented by Volunteer Marek against me, which are now published as "Analysis", should instead be moved to my own "Evidence" section, since they are - if I'm not mistaken - "rebuttals". To be clear, this is a question, not a request on my part: I don't understand the practical difference between having them as Analysis or Evidence, and I just wish the Arbs would read them before making any decisions concerning me. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Question

To editor Barkeep49: May I add a second case study, slightly shorter? Zero^talk 12:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Zero0000: since your last evidence was collapsed you have a reset word and diff count. I'm fine with you going as long as that last one. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Currently pushing word limits

I will probably not have anything else ready to come out of my sandbox until sometime tomorrow, so there is no real urgency. I'm just pointing this out. I still have some things that need to be said about Gitz and TB's recent edits in the Poland TA, so I'd appreciate it if one more round of summarization could take place, or, if some of what I have submitted isn't seen as pertinent or necessary, if someone could let me know to remove it. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Zero0000 case studies

Thanks for laying out case study 1, Zero0000. I also looked at Tec's book a few days ago and came to exactly the same conclusions.

As for case study 2, there was a copyright claim in that case too that motivated VM's rewrites. This diff from last month's Signpost Newsroom discussion has more details, including another quote from Marcus (scroll down to "This takes us deep into content"): [65]. For the copyright complaint and the source plagiarised see Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland/Archive_3#Section_break. --Andreas JN466 15:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Slate article by Stephen Harrison

https://slate.com/technology/2023/04/how-wikipedia-covers-the-history-of-the-holocaust-in-poland.html --Andreas JN466 15:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

We're getting awfully close to WP:N for the topic if we aren't over the line already. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• A disclaimer:

  The usual cabal was fiercely territorial about these articles, reverting her changes and implying that no newbies were allowed. Clearly, a small group of Wikipedia editors seems to be trying to exhaust the other side until they no longer have the time or energy to fight.

  is not a quote from me and is (probably) the author's interpretation of events. This is super-obvious given the lack of quotations and attribution but I felt it worth clarifying. Ty, logging out again. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  So the author didn't contact you in any way? Marcelus (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  I was contacted and did provide my perspective — almost entirely on governance issues in Wikipedia than any editor(s) or their behavior — which was trimmed down to the phrase in quotes ("pretty hostile reception"), that precedes the block quote. However, I cannot exert any control on (1) the extent to which my views will be accommodated by a journalist and/or (2) their editorial interpretation of my or others' on-wiki activities.

  I gave this disclaimer only to avoid accusations of using third party forums to discredit perceived opponents than engaging in this ongoing case. I hope that I am clear? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Request to speed things up

Is there any way that the proceedings here can be sped up, to reduce the amount of time various parties, including myself, have to live under the associated litigation stress? And if we are concerned with the good of the project, this case has already cost Wikipedia an equivalent of 1-2 Good Articles or a dozen of DYKs of my wiki-time alone. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I know that this isn't a new comment from you Piotrus but also can't help but see this as a response to FR's request for an extension. From my point of view it feels a bit out of touch given that we're already struggling to keep up with what has been submitted. I do want to acknowledge that the stress for parties is real and it is sucking up time people may have spent on other wiki activities.I don't want to diminish that either. However, from my perspective it's important we get this right as I don't want to repeat the issues Joe Roe, as a drafter, feels happened the last time we examined this area not to mention the media attention. If there's nothing to be found I want to say that with some conviction rather than because we stick to a timeline that we made based on our best guess of what would work. Courtesy ping for @Primefac and @Wugapodes as I did above. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Be damned if you do and damned if you don't, I guess :> I do not envy you having to make such choices; but I did want to express my feelings about this situation. Which I did, and I'll respect whatever decision you make. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Missing Evidence

Elinruby presented some evidence which I had replied to, in details. Now, why is the evidence missing? The FAQ says that evidence, once replied to, cannot be removed. Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam isn't this it? Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: My analysis is not missing but the evidence is missing from the evidence page. It has been deleted wholesale. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

That's because you answered it before it was summarized and while just before I'd been asked to stop talking about you. I am not sure how your comments on my draft wound up in analysis but I've been meaning to ask about that also.

Since so many people have the page on their watchlist and one of them asked me to revise in my sandbox rather than live edit, I've been doing that. I realize that most people write up their text ahead of time, but I'd pretty much decided to let HJ Mitchell deal with you rather than add you as a party. Since you decided to call that stalking, and I only had a few hours, I confined myself to getting some diffs into evidence. But no, I am not withdrawing anything, if that's your question.

@Barkeep: can I have an extension to my word limit if you are running behind on summarizing? I am probably slightly over right now, and the TrangaBellam evidence is kind of extensive, covering several articles that I want to be sure I understand. And I am still adding in the timeline from March 17. I need to get this back into my area by the deadline though, thus my space concern. Elinruby (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby this would have been a good place to just ignore TrangaBellam. How many words of extension are you looking for? My very rough count shows you at just over 1100 right now. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry I missed this particular opportunity to ignore Trangabellam, but in my own defense she 1) has had a strawman based on unsummarized evidence in the analysis section for days 2) misrepresented what the FAQ says and apparently accused me of some sort malfeasance. I see she corrected herself on your talk page, but that's your talk page, not this very public venue.

As for how many words: depends? I could trim the quotes in my currently unsummarized evidence, but in at least one of the submissions I want to be very careful not to misrepresent the statements made. I can definitely remove 100 words from the more recent submission that goes with it.

Re Trangabellam evidence, I told you when we discussed the interaction ban that I was about 85% done. This may have been a little optimistic, as I think it will be easier to summarize if I include some text with the diffs beyond the labels. But it is mostly diffs. If it helps and TB does not object some of the narrative about disrespecting long-term editors could move to analysis. Alternately, if the currently unsummarized evidence isn't needed, let me know, and I will remove it and not need an extension. But I am thinking that with the extended deadline this is probably moot and the summarizers will either summarize or collapse what is there (?) Just let me know what you want me to do. Elinruby (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam you have zero edits to the evidence page so I'm not sure what you think was there and was removed? Barkeep49 (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I'm pretty sure TB is talking about evidence about TB added by ER prior to March 21 ("Having been warned about their behaviour at Naliboki massacre towards other editors, [diffs], TrangaBellam bulldozes articles... "), responded-to by TB at the Analysis page on March 21, and then removed from the evidence page by ER on April 3. Levivich (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Levivich (and TB on my user talk). Let me discuss with the other drafters. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Withdrawing evidence

I understand why Arbs deleted some of my evidence, though I think the removal may have been hasty. To my reading, the removal leaves my submission heavily favouring a certain side, to a degree Im unhappy with. Id also ask for my whole analyses section to be removed, except others made some good comments there. The fact at least two Arbs interpreted my submission the way they did means I was unsuccessful in my attempt to help here. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable I actually found your evidence to be exactly what we had asked for and potentially highly useful (I still haven't had a chance to look at it indepth but that was my initial read), it's just that single line which stood out. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Evidence by Paul Siebert

I just saw his evidence here. Please let me assure that I have no hard feelings with regard to Paul right now and have no problem interacting with him anywhere. Yes, he asked me not to comment on his talk page, and I respect this request. This is all. He is welcome on my talk page of course. I believe his evidence is completely out of scope for this case (the Ukrainian subjects like Bandera are outside the topic), very old, and none of his diffs shows any guilt on my part. However, if arbitrators think this is something relevant to the case or would like any explanations from me about specific diffs, I would be happy to provide them. No, I did not report Paul as a sock of Icewitz. Yes, I can see that Paul did not like my old comment about him on the ANI. I believe that was a fair comment by me, but again, this is something old and outside the scope. My very best wishes (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

As a note of order, I should provide this link, i.e. there was an editing restriction for Paul preventing him, among other things, from "any continuation of your WWII-related conflict with the user My very best wishes in any forum". I assume that editing restriction was lifted later, but not sure. My very best wishes (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@My very best wishes I would suggest waiting to see what gets summarized before taking the time to explain any of the diffs. As for the editing restriction, participation between parties at a case has been considered WP:BANEX as legitimate and necessary dispute resolution so even though as far as I can tell that editing restrict is still in place, it is not a violation to post that evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

OK. Thank you! If needed, I will make a couple of statements/comments at the next phase of this case. But to be honest, I am dismayed by the posting by Paul. For example, he gives this diff as an evidence of my wrongdoing. But I am saying in edit summary that the text reads like Russian propaganda, and it is not about the source (this is excellent source), but about incorrect or at least biased summary of the source made by someone. He provides my comment at ANI as a proof of something, but I was only one of many people who commented out there, and Paul was sanctioned as a result of this discussion. Below he disputes his AE topic ban by Sandstein, etc. But again, this is out of scope. This case is too complex already. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Ops. I forgot about that old incident. However, the topic ban's statement says:

"You are topic-banned from everything related to the Eastern Front (World War II) (i.e. the Germany vs. USSR aspect of WWII) for three months. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes the reasons for the war, atrocities, etc., and also any continuation of your WWII-related conflict with the user My very best wishes in any forum, such as AE."

This "For the avoidance of doubt, this includes" allows no double interpretation: the second sentence just specifies the first one, so "for three months" refers to everything listed in the second sentence.

Therefore, this restriction had expired several years ago, and it was limited only with the WWII related conflicts.

Actually, the case mentioned by MVBW is also the incident that may be relevant: MVBW removed the text to support some fringe theory that blames Stalin of Hitler's sins, and this theory is popular among many Hitler's admirers. During the discussion of that case, I used an awkward warding: instead of "he made an edit aimed to support the theory that partially exonerates Hitler" (which is a non-controversial statement supported by many reliable sources), I wrote something like "he made an edit aimed to support Hitler". It was definitely wrong: MVBW has never been Hitler's supporter, and Sandstein correctly topic banned me for that incorrect wording.

However, the MVBW's vandalism (removal of a huge text supported by good sources thereby giving an undue weight to a minority view that partially exonerates Hitler) remained unpunished. That was incorrect, and that should be fixed. Paul Siebert (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Since strong statements need strong evidences, this is an example (one out of many) of the source that supports my claim "aimed to support the theory that partially exonerates Hitler". That source discusses Victor Suvorov (the author whom MVBW is advocating) in the same context as David Irving.--Paul Siebert (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Is this related to Icebreaker_(Suvorov)#Reception? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. But this is hardly a good place for debating if Suvorov exonerated Hitler. Of course he did not. Suvorov argued that Hitler was manipulated by Stalin into a predetermined defeat when they signed the well-known secret protocols to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, leading to the war by Germany on two fronts, etc. But Whatever Suvorov or any other authors were writing is irrelevant. What might be relevant is only the false vandalism accusation by Paul. And no, I am not "advocating Suvorov". And no, Sandstein did not issue the topic ban just for incorrect wording, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The claim was of partial exoneration which appears to be true, the idea that Hitler was manipulated by Stalin into a predetermined defeat is a WP:FRINGE view. If someone stripped out mainstream views to feature a fringe one thats a problem and given that the context is inescapably WWII in Poland and the Holocaust it would appear to be within scope. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, everything about WWII, Stalin and Hitler is related to the History of Jews in Poland, but I do not think all of that should be included to the case. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

There is every chance that the clerks and arbiters will choose not to include it in the case. I don't think what you or I think is going to shift them on that call either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Was it an article or an edit about the history of Jews in Poland? And frankly, the claim that any of that can be regarded as "partial exoneration" of Hitler is absolutely ridiculous. I am surprised by such interpretation. Whatever could happen in the mind of Hitler can not be regarded as any "exoneration" for anything he did. Perhaps some people claim it, but not any author I read, including Suvorov. Now, speaking about this part of evidence [66]]

1. First para. Yes, this is diff of my comment. If anything, that was commendable on my part. What bad content did I support?
2. 2nd para. Yes, you are very much welcome to avoid interactions with any user you want. What "good mistakes" did I made? I did not make mistake. What he is talking about?
3. 3rd para. Yes, I did mention him during SPI in a context he did not like, but I never said he was a sock of I. It was so long time ago, and I forgot. This is now correctly summarized in the Summary of evidence. My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
4. 4th para. This is all irrelevant unless he believes that asking and answering such innocent question has revealed something really important. But this is nothing special. A lot of people in Russia admired that scout, and perhaps he was a hero (I suspect that his glory was in fact overstated).
5. 5th para. I made an ANI comment, along with comments by many other people with whom I agreed. I did not started this ANI thread, but joined in the middle of discussion. The thread resulted in editing restriction, hence it had merit. My comment was on the subject of the thread, i.e. behavior of the user under discussion. My assertions were supported by diffs. Perhaps you disagree, that's fine, but bringing all of that here and now to demand sanctions is clearly problematic. My very best wishes (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I striked through a part of my comment above because this is not so simple. Do I have a problem interacting with Paul in the project? The answer is "no" and "yes". The answer is "no" simply because I stopped editing all pages where we had content disagreements with Paul. This is really the issue. I left him all pages where we had content disagreements, we do not interact for years, but he still brings very old and irrelevant complaints about me and threatens to request a new arbitration case, specifically to get me banned [67]. Why he is doing this? This is not good. But maybe I am wrong here and should just edit whatever I want to edit, regardless to Paul? My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Please do not change comments after they have been responded to as you did here[68], this is generally considered to be misleading and in poor taste. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

That was edit conflict with you, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

24h extension

Could you please extend the time to present evidence by 24h please? I still need to format everything because it looks chaotic but my time is extremely limited. If you could I would greatly appreciate it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC) — GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock puppet of Jacurek (talk · contribs).

We're working out the details but there will be an extension of the evidence phase. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 - Thank you so much - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC) — GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock puppet of Jacurek (talk · contribs).

Evidence Phase 1 extended

This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland § Evidence Phase 1 extended.[edit]

The first evidence phase has been extended to 23:59 (UTC) on 9 April. At this particular point in time the drafters do not expect other phases will need to be extended to accommodate this change, but if necessary we will make that announcement. This will be the last evidence phase 1 extension, so please prioritise your outstanding evidence if it is longer than the current limits. Primefac (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect link?

@User:Wugapodes in the section François Robere and Volunteer Marekyou summarize: Volunteer Marek removed a different claim he had previously tagged as {{dubious}} . The diff you provide is this one. That's not me. That's some IP account. That IP was edit-warring to support Francois Robere. Did you mean this one?

BTW, the three sources that Francois Robere used to supposedly support the claim are here (Gera and Federman), here (Easton) and here (Lis). NONE of these say that " In 2021 Poland finally enacted a bill prohibiting the restitution of property". Here is FR subsequently essentially admitting that the info was "inaccurate" but reverting anyway [69]. The revision that FR *eventually* conceded to was based on my suggestion on talk. Volunteer Marek 07:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I am assuming that the diff in question is Special:Diff/1038948149, since that one immediately follows the diff originally given by Wugapodes, and have updated it. Primefac (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. @User:Wugapodes or @User:Primefac - I was wondering if the following could be added to the summary (maybe this should be at the summary appeal).The summary currently states:The article Property restitution in Poland was created by François Robere at 15:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC). 93 minutes later, Volunteer Marek made a series of changes starting at 17:48. This is true but omits the fact that in between the creation and my edits, at 15:49, Francois Robere linked their new article in the Holocaust in Poland article, which obviously I had on my watchlist and was active on, with {{main|Property restitution in Poland}}. Basically, someone could incorrectly infer from current wording that I was checking FR's contribution or something and "followed them", where in fact they themselves "announced" the new article and presumably, by adding the tag in the HiP article invited others to edit (as is standard). Volunteer Marek 18:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Wug·a·po·des 19:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks User:Wugapodes. One more issue - and I hope I'm not annoying ya'll or being nit-picky, just want to get this right. In the Summary of evidence involving François Robere/History of the Jews in Poland section it says: Volunteer Marekt adds over 4500 bytes of text with the edit summary.... I didn't "add" the text. I restored an older version, basically this one or possibly this one (not sure how to check two versions against each other so I'm going by # of kilobytes). If I'm understanding correctly - this is a dispute from almost 4 years ago- that was the version that was the "compromise" version between various editors. Icewhiz reverted it anyway. Volunteer Marek 23:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I am the one working on that summary. I have changed it to the fact that you reverted Icewhiz with that edit. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

We are not our past

(Moved to Analysis) --Andreas JN466 13:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Grabowski and Klein's view of other scholars

Currently ruled out of scope by User:Wugapodes with the hat note "Issues of scholarly standing are out of scope".

Users have submitted evidence concerning identification of reliable sources, legitimisation of fringe academics and so forth which has been summarised on the evidence summary page. These aspects do involve issues of scholarly standing.

Would you therefore be so kind as to summarise my evidence along with existing, similar evidence in the Article and response section on the Evidence Summary page? --Andreas JN466 12:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

A critical phrase in the summary linked it ...with regards to the conduct of named editors. You may also wish to refer to the FAQ where we make clear This case is not about the paper (emphasis original). The submission presents nothing about on-wiki conduct and is just an argument in favor of a particular point of view regarding named scholars. That's plainly out of scope. — Wug·a·po·des 23:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Wugapodes, Barkeep49, and Primefac: Assertions that editors have legitimised fringe scholars are discussed at length in Evidence and Analysis contributions, based on the essay's characterisations of various scholars. If we do that, then we must also do our due diligence and verify to what extent the essay's characterisations of scholars are reflective of wider scholarship. We can't just take the authors' characterisations on blind faith. We have to identify where Grabowski and Klein themselves stand in the overall spectrum of opinion before we can judge editors' conduct in relation to WP:NPOV.

This applies in particular to scholars who have become radicalised in more recent years. (This seems to be the case with Chodakiewicz and Kurek, e.g.). To give an example from the world journalism, consider the example of Russ Baker. This is a journalist who has written for top publications like The New Yorker, The Washington Post, etc. but has turned his back on writing for mainstream publications in recent years. He now pursues journalism via his own non-mainstream news website. Now imagine someone publishes an academic paper asserting that Wikipedians who have cited, say, Baker's award-winning piece on Bush's military record are "legitimising a fringe conspiracy theorist". At that point we have to ask ourselves: Is this a fair assessment? And specifically, Was Baker a fringe writer at the time he wrote that piece?

The FAQ encourages this. It specifically states, Further analysis and context, including rebuttals for the paper's conclusions, is also permissible. This is what I provided.

I was trying to be brief in writing my evidence. If you are missing a clear reference to "editor conduct" in what I wrote, I am happy to add a sentence at the beginning, such as Grabowski and Chapmansh allege that editors have legitimised fringe scholars. Their views of these scholars are not universally shared. Regards, --Andreas JN466 13:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I cannot speak for Wugapodes, obviously, but in my opinion the hatted section in question is about content; we are looking at conduct in this case. We are also not looking at the conduct of Grabowski and Klein themselves, so their opinions on other scholars (or how it affects their writing) is not particularly of importance to this case, unless one can make a direct link between on-Wiki conduct and what G&K have stated. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to support Andreas here. The claim that WP favors fringe/unreliable scholars is one of G&K's most prominent charges. Consideration of who and why they consider fringe/unreliable is important in assessing that charge. This is not about the conduct of G&K, but about the weight to be assigned to their charges against WP editors. I'd also like to note Piotrus's evidence against the numerical version of G&K's charge (Chart 3), which I have checked and endorse. Zero^talk 15:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The repeated attempts to go beyond the scope of this case is something unlike anything I've experienced with other case. It's happening with parties and non-parties (also pretty unusual) and even after multiple arbs hold to the line of the identified scope. The closest I can recall is when people felt there should be a second party at an admin conduct case, but the persistence and different vectors of attempts to widen the case are different here. I think there are a number reasons this could be (many of which could be working together) but it's still striking to me. Because this reply came after two of the drafters have already given a substantive decline, it felt like the right time to note this observation but I'm not just talking about this request. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps thats because if you interpret the recent article as an "attack on wikipedia" then circling the wagons and returning fire is the natural response (albeit one which is incompatible with Wikipedia's ethos). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I think most people would forget about the G&K article already unless we had this arbitration. I certainly would. To me, this is like people firing at each other, or more exactly, bringing back old grudges that were unrelated to the case. I would count everything older than one year as old grudges. My very best wishes (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

You can speak for yourself but I don't have any old grudges here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the key question to ask is "what is that other 'beyond scope' scope"? Without clearly identifying it and making sure we are on the same page here, it's hard to discuss anything specific (such as the reasons the Committee thinks certain concerns are not relevant, etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Confusion about scope is pretty natural, as it is not exactly obvious at first glance whether the charge of "legitimizing fringe academics" should be considered content or conduct issue, not to mention that arbs vague statements about not going to pretend the article doesn't exist don't really help either. That said, it is understandable arbs may not feel comfortable about making decisions regarding scholarly standings of different historians.--Staberinde (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

If "legitimizing fringe academics" were considered a mere content issue, I wouldn't expect to see it discussed in the Evidence Summary and on the Analysis page. But if it is a conduct issue, then we have to note that the essay's authors chose to give a one-sided portrayal of scholars they don't agree with – for example by omitting to mention that Chodakiewicz was a Presidential appointee to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council.

Nobody is suggesting that Chapmansh or Grabowski should be sanctioned for having a scholarly opinion. But I don't think even Grabowski himself would claim to be a neutral or centrist voice. I think I have provided some good evidence that the authors' opinion as to who is and who isn't a worthwhile scholar is their idiosyncratic opinion, and I'd be grateful if that could be added to the "Article and response" section. Andreas JN466 16:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Compare what you submitted to us with Piotr's 27 point essay or Zero's analyses of how G&K's factual assertions (not opinions) are or are not based in the reality of our content and provision of specific diffs demonstrating provenance of disputed claims. These deal with (1) factual assertions about (2) conduct which (3) occurred on Wikipedia; their reference to G&K is incidental to the claims being made in those statements because they deal with whether the way in which content came to appear on Wikipedia was appropriate within our policies. Put another way, they deal with on-wiki conduct, whether that conduct was appropriate, and how that conduct resulted in (or did not result in) content G&K take issue with.

In comparison, you provided us with a statement that one person was given two accolades (appointment to a committee and recognition of service when leaving that same committee) which we do not have the expertise to evaluate the merit of (is being appointed by George W. Bush a sign of scholarly merit? Arguable, but not an argument this committee will entertain), and a statement that two people (seemingly aligned with the aforementioned appointee) were cited favorably in a 2007 book (published during the term of the aforementioned appointee by his organization). Based on this, you implore us to question, in the Committee's voice, the opinion of scholars on the state of their field. I will not, and your assertion is not so groundbreaking that I feel compelled to ignore both our scope and our jurisdiction.

We do not need to evaluate (indeed, we will not evaluate) whether the authors make fair assessments of other scholars. We do not need to evaluate (indeed, we will not evaluate) whether any particular author is or was "fringe" at any given point of time let alone establish a timeline of their purported radicalization. You are asking us to do things that are not merely out of scope, but plainly outside of our jurisdiction and expertise. Your submission has nothing to do with Wikipedia, requires us to evaluate relative scholarly merit, and makes no allegations regarding conduct that occurred on-wiki. Speaking for myself, I will not be summarizing it, and based on the statements from the other drafters above, I would guess they have similar views. — Wug·a·po·des 21:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain your reasoning, Wugapodes. You say, Based on this, you implore us to question, in the Committee's voice, the opinion of scholars on the state of their field.

I am not asking you to do so in the Committee's voice. I am asking you to summarise what I said, just like you summarised Zero0000's opinion in the Article and response section by writing Zero0000 has suggested that editors promote Nazi stereotypes (see also Piotrus #26) and that Wikipedia is pushing the idea that "money-hungry Jews controlled or still control Poland" may be false. (That sentence really needs a copyedit, by the way.)

You are summarising the evidence members of the community have submitted, not the committee's own opinion (with the exception of those cases where members of the committee themselves submitted evidence).

The United States Holocaust Memorial Council is not just "a committee". It is a national academic body charged with overseeing the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which is one of the most highly regarded sources we have in this topic area, with thousands upon thousands of citations. If we want to speak of "legitimizing" Chodakiewicz, then the U.S. academic establishment "legitimized" Chodakiewicz far more than our humble editors here could ever do.

Which fair-minded commentator would demand from our volunteer editors that they consider Presidential appointees to the USHMC as "fringe"? And it is important that this is information Grabowski and Klein left out when they accused editors of "legitimizing" Chodakiewicz. They made no effort to present Chodakiewicz' standing neutrally to their readers.

Speaking for myself, I am really no fan of Bush's presidency. However, the process that identifies Presidential appointees to the USHMC is bound to have scholarly input.

Lastly, the Council has 68 members. Chodakiewicz was not on the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum editorial team for the book I mention. There are no obviously Polish names in the roster either. Your suggestion that Chodakiewicz personally, as one of 68 council members, was probably responsible for Lukas and Kurek being cited seems like a rather unlikely theory to me.

Think about it ... I'd be grateful if my point could make it in the evidence summary, but other than that, there is no need to reply further. Thank you for your time. Regards, Andreas JN466 11:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Just a note that the United States Holocaust Memorial Council is an administrative body not an academic one. The President can appoint whoever they want, there isn't scholarly input or a standardized vetting process. The vast majority of people on the council are philanthropists not scholars (I know a council member, he isn't a scholar or even Jewish). I agree that G&K were rough with Chodakiewicz, but you're going way too far the other way to make him look good... In the same way they play fast and loose with calling him unreliable you're playing fast and loose with calling him reliable, the difference is that their evidence actually supports their position and yours does not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You are right that there are many members on the Council who are not scholars. At the same time, Chodakiewicz was appointed on the basis of his scholarly qualifications rather than as a philanthropist, Holocaust survivor or some other such criterion.

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's press release announced Chodakiewicz's appointment as follows:

Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Washington, D.C., is a Professor of History at the Institute of World Politics and has held positions at several universities in the U.S. An expert in modern European and Russian history, he has published numerous scholarly monographs and documentary collections. His latest work is Between Nazis and Soviets: Occupation Politics in Poland, 1939—1947 (2004).

This is the author (and the precise book) Grabowski and Klein argue editors here should have treated as an example of "fringe" scholarship.

I am not trying to provide a neutral assessment of Chodakiewicz nor even my personal one. I am introducing countervailing arguments that are necessary in my view because some people at least are treating Grabowski and Klein's essay as though it were a Wikipedia-style "NPOV summary" of the discipline rather than a polemic.

For what it's worth, I don't see your agreeing that G&K "were rough with Chodakiewicz" as strongly different from my assertion that Grabowski and Klein "made no effort to present Chodakiewicz' standing neutrally to their readers". Andreas JN466 17:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The first ever Icewhiz's edit to the Choidakiewicz page in his BLP's smearing campaigns (Icewhiz did the same to the pages of other scholars he didn't like) was the removal of that exact information from his BIO. GizzyCatBella🍁 17:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC) — GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock puppet of Jacurek (talk · contribs).

Is the implication that I'm a sock of Icewhiz? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back I did not say that so please stop this, okay? - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC) — GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock puppet of Jacurek (talk · contribs).

Then what is the implication of this otherwise off topic comment? What is the information about Icewhiz supposed to add to our understanding of a situation which does not involve Icewhiz? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not off topic comment. The assessment of Chodaikiewicz in Grabowski and Klein's essay is in line with Icewhiz’s (and his sock puppets) edits to his BIO page. That’s the point. GizzyCatBella🍁 18:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC) — GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock puppet of Jacurek (talk · contribs).

Why is that relevant? Why do we care what Icewhiz’s opinion was unless the point is to cast aspersions against those who supposedly share them? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Treating it as a "NPOV summary" would be a mistake, as would treating it as a polemic. You have no more grounds on which to make that claim than anyone who tries to treat it as Gospel does. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to agree that it is something between the two. Andreas JN466 19:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: You write: "The repeated attempts to go beyond the scope of this case is something unlike anything I've experienced with other case."

Collapsing something that belongs in a Workshop but the Committee decided not to have a workshop for this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I know that this page is intended for procedural questions only. But I think that, as soon as you have made this remark, the detailed answer to it is also pertinent to this page. If the attempts to go beyond the scope are repeated, that may imply one of the following: for some magical reason, the percentage of silly users involved in this case is much greater that in Wikipedia on average; many good faith users have serious reasons to believe that the problem is much more systemic than it seems, and it cannot be adequately resolved without going beyond the scope as outlined by ArbCom. I am inclined to believe that the second explanation is much more plausible. I can provide just a very simple, straightforward example: a user GizzyCatBella. If we analyze GizzyCatBella's contribution only in the HiP topic, as it was defined by you (you excluded Eastern Poland, a.k.a. Western Ukraine from the scope), it may be tempting to conclude that this user engages in the Holocaust revisionism. However, the contributions by the same user in the topics related to Eastern Poland are quite opposite: this user is actively opposing to the attempts to whitewash the Holocaust perpetrators (all needed evidences can be provided if necessary). Just think: if the scope of the project remains narrow, that may (at least, theoretically) lead to GCB's topic ban from "Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed", which may (and will) be interpreted by AE admins as the topic ban from everything that occurred in the territory of pre-war Poland, including Western Ukraine. Will Wikipedia benefit from that? I don't know. However, I cannot rule out the possibility that the net effect of total elimination of GKB from the Holocaust related topics may be negative: whereas the Polish sources are becoming more "westernised" and civilized, many Ukrainian authors (Viatrovich is a typical example) writing about the Holocaust in Western Ukraine are engaged in a more blatant whitewashing of the perpetrators, and the number of new Ukrainian nationalist users is increasing. Therefore, the ArbCom's decision may break the (very imperfect, but working) system of checks and balances that currently exists in this topic (and GCB is a part of this system). This is just one small example. I can provide much, much more, but that is not what you want: you want to narrow the scope as much as possible. __________________________________________ The ArbCom's "toolbox" is pretty limited, and it includes: editing restrictions, which may be imposed on some users (topic ban, 1RR, etc) editing restrictions, which may be applied to some topics (1RR, "consensus required", "source quality expectations", full protection, etc). some general warning about the need to stick with our policy, and about severe sanctions for those who violates it. a decision may be made that the F&K article should be (fully or partially) disregarded, because the author's conclusions are ether unsubstantiated, or they express the views of just two authors. I cannot, and I am not going to predict the prospective ArbCom's decision, but I would be very surprised if it will include anything else. What effect the decision may have? If the decision will involve some editing restrictions, I envision two scenarios: First, if the restrictions will be mild, I anticipate no improvement: majority of articles are already under severe restrictions, and the very fact that the G&K has been published is a demonstration that that does not work. If mild sanctions are imposed on the parties, that will have no effect either: they are very experienced users, and they know how to live with that. Second, if the sanctions will be severe, that may have two different effects. if severe editing restrictions will be applied to the articles, we will have a situation similar to what happened to Mass killings under Communist regimes article: the article, which is a single huge POV-fork, and has tremendows SYNTH, and V problems, the article that was a subject of the longest AfD in the Wikipedia history (which was extensively covered in mass-media, so it took place under an immense off-Wiki pressure). Later, the RfC defined the new topic of the article, but the results of the RfC have never been implemented, although more than a year has passed since it. The work on this article has stalled because of severe editing restrictions, and because all participants are sick and tired of that conflict, and we all are pretty sure that any attempt to start working on this topic will be immediately blocked by the opposite party, and will lead just to the next round of fruitless and tiresome talk page discussions. Therefore, I have very serious reasons to anticipate that any attempts to apply severe restrictions to the HiP articles will have very negative consequences: the work on this topic will stall, and the article will become what physicists call "a frozen accident". if the sanctions will be applied to some users, the result will be the next round of edit wars. That is a well known phenomenon in ethology: if hunters put a trap on the wolf trail, they usually catch a leader. The pack become disorganized, and hungry young wolves start hunting kettle, so the result is opposite to what was expected. If old, experienced Wikipedians will be eliminated from the HiP topic, new, more aggressive and less experienced users may come, for the pool of nationalist sources still exists, and nationalist moods in Central Europe are growing. The situation is even worse: rising of nationalism and ultranationalism in some Central European countries amounted to the level of the Holocaust obfuscation (e.g. Double genocide theory) or suppression of the freedom of speech: we all know that in 2018, the Polish parliament approved an amendment to its Institute of National Remembrance Act, which is widely panned in global media as the “Holocaust speech law”. That means even if we ban all parties listed in this case, the next generation of users will come to this empty area, and a new wave of edit wars will start, which may be even more aggressive and fierce. We need a systemic solution. It must take into account the main difference between Wikipedia and the scholarly community: the scholars select sources based on their (i.e. source's) reputation, whereas amateur Wikipedians select the sources based on the reputation the source has among Wikipedians (see WP:CON). As one scholar correctly noted,Wikipedis changes the criteria we use to judge expertise. That is simultaneously the main flaw of Wikipedia and its major advantage. ____________________________________________________ What kind of systemic solution can be proposed? In my evidence, I proposed one: the users must be responsible not only for the additions or deletions of some text, but also for the edits (additions or reverts) made by others, if they supported them during talk page (or AE) discussions. In other words, if some SPA or IP adds some poor quality source or distorts a good source, and some experienced user endorses it (for example, during a talk page discussion), both users must be sanctioned equally severely. That measure is absolutely necessary, although it is by no means sufficient. Furthermore, we definitely need something similar to WP:MEDRS for this topic. Incidentally, the users who are (or potentially are) the most disruptive in the HiP area, usually resists to the introduction of more restrictive interpretation of our WP:V or other two content policies. A simple example (it is a part of my evidences, but it is buried deeply in the diffs provided by me): when MVWB falsely accused me of being a sock (or a sockmaster), he, among other evidences, referred to the WP:V talk page discussion, where I was advocating more strict interpretation of the content policy, which would have eliminated lion's share of poor quality sources, including the sources the Polish nationalist party relied upon during the HiP conflict. Incidentally, during that discussion, MVBW was actively resisting to making our source policy more strict, and the reason is simple: he is heavily relying on poor quality sources. Another example: the RSN discussion about Glaukopis: a disproportionately huge amount of efforts were needed to come to an agreement that this lousy source should not be used. Clearly, the persistent attempt to preserve Glaukopis should be considered as disruptive behaviour (although, per our current policy, it is not). I fully realize that ArbCom has no authority to change our policy. However, I think if the arbitrators emphasize the importance of a more strict interpretation of the source policy in EE related topics, that would help us to renew the work on its modification, as well as on conversion of this essay to full scale guidelines (by analogy with WP:MEDRS). Finally, I fully realize that working on the HiP case is a very hard task, and, to make the Arbitrator's life easier, I propose to exclude my evidences against MVBW from this case. I still believe that this user is very harmful for history related topics (his contributions in biophysics are quite good and beneficial for the project), but I think I'll better to submit a full case against MVBW later in observable future. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Yes, sure, one can suggest something along the lines of WP:MEDRS for History to have a community discussion about it (making new content policies is hardly something for Arbcom). But I am sure such proposal will be soundly defeated for a number of good reasons. History is not medicine and some physicists say even not science. For example, all current events are a part of history. There are no scientific review articles about them. Jews in Poland? Why should we exclude materials by Yad Vashem about them? They would not qualify per WP:MEDRS. My very best wishes (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC) We have WP:APLRS already. They seem to work, more or less. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC) I think WP:APLRS (currently framed as a "reliable-source consensus required") is unnecessary. First, the consensus is always required, regardless to the quality of sources (APLRS makes it to appear as if the consensus would not be required for higher quality sources). Secondly, it is pretty much "ad hoc". It arbitrary singles out certain small subject in history that is not fundamentally different from other historical subjects. It does not (and can not) define what a "reputable institution" is. It says that "an article in a peer reviewed scholarly journal" (such as the article by G&K) would be a high quality source. Not so according to WP:MEDRS. It would be explicitly forbidden as an original research article in a peer reviewed scholarly journal. This is done for MEDRS because some of such research articles are of terrible quality, and the peer review process can not save them. However, I am not advocating for WP:MEDRS in non-medical areas. I think that sources like newspaper Pravda, Kavkaz Center or Glaukopus can be used if used properly, and they are used properly in many books which cite them. My very best wishes (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC) P.S. I can see that Paul wants me banned (and I disagree with his removals of sourced crimes by Soviet secret police [70],[71],[72],[73],[74],[75]), but I do agree with Paul on one point he made above: the removal of GizzyCatBella (and I would add: any other contributor singled out by G&K) from the subject area would not be good for the project. Whatever disagreements these users might have in the past, things indeed were rather quiet during last year.My very best wishes (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC) I too thought about providing some evidence about the article, but realized that would be unhelpful. Same with most other content-related Evidence I think. I did saw a few examples in Evidence where people placed some sources that clearly do not support the statement(s). Was that intentional or an error? Did they insist to include an obviously wrong ref or another mistake, after some other participants raised objections? If so, that was clearly problematic. But if not, I do not think so. A lot was said about user Poeticbent. He seemed like a nice person to me, and I am sure he would not object fixing anything if I asked him at the time he was active. But he was mostly working alone, and no one usually checked what he was doing. Everything needs to be checked. My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Gitz6666 evidence collapsed (a drafter's note)

I have collapsed this section (for now) as I am not sure it is an example of anything other than potentially "consensus can change" (while recognising that the substance of the information gives indication of Volunteer Marek's part in said discussion). As such, I am not putting the original analysis on the /Analysis page (for now) but have included it below for potential future use. Primefac (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Original Analysis by Gitz6666

Analysis. There are two plausible explanations for this rapid change of opinion in the community. First, the March 2023 discussion was negatively influenced by the recent publication of the unreliable and biased G&K article. Second, the February 2021 discussion was negatively influenced by VM's incivility and bludgeoning, and by the usual support from involved editors. The choice between these two explanations is the fundamental issue at the heart of this case. On the one side we could rely on RSs and trust them when they tell us that Glaukopis is unreliable, or that the restitution of abandoned property to Jews in post-war Poland was difficult, or that there's no reason to believe that the Naliboki massacre was carried out by Jewish partisans, or that local ethnic Poles and the Home Army were occasionally hostile to Jewish fugitives, etc. (examples taken from my evidence, many more in François Robere's evidence). On the other side we could rely on the good faith and competence of fellow editors who have been close to us for years. I understand that for some users this may be a difficult choice. Another instructive discussion is the AfD on Anna Poray (Poeticbent, Nihil Novi, My very best wishes, MyMoloboaccount, Tatzref, GizzyCatBella - Volunteer Marek is absent). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gitz6666 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Summary

Moved from User talk:Barkeep49

I will be away for over a fortnight due to RL business, atleast till 25 April. My comments on the summarized evidence as of now:

• Why are you acknowledging positive contributions by Marcelus, Ealgdyth, Piotrus, Elinruby and others in my section? I do not deny or question the nature of such a characterization but only concerned with the placement.
• I do not see the relevance of the section on Forgotten Holocaust. Indeed, I was a participant in multiple discussions on the t/p but not a single diff pertaining to me has been cited. It's all about Levelyn, Nihilnovi, Levivich, Piotrus, and others.
• Almost all the diffs in the last section fail WP:INTEGRITY. That said, the narrative is factually accurate at large. However, I will appreciate emphasis on two points:

• I retracted "though I doubt that you understand the term" on Piotrus' request. This was long before the AE and I was not counselled into the retraction by any other editor/admin; my point is that it was not a strategy to get away lightly by avoiding sanctions.
• GCB's reply on March 2 at Talk:Mariusz Bechta came amidst the AE thread when admins were discussing their comments and proposing various sanctions.

TrangaBellam (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC) Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Start of Evidence Phase 2 delayed

This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland § Start of Evidence Phase 2 delayed.[edit]

The start of Evidence Phase 2 will be delayed until 17 April to match the closing of Evidence Phase 1. Primefac (talk) 05:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Summary of "5.8 BLP-related dispute at Jan Zaryn" under Francois Robere

@User:Wugapodes - I feel the summary here misses a key point. The text included by Mhorg (and later defended and re-added by Francois Robere) accused the BLP subject of making statements that "have been recognized" "as nationalist, anti-Semitic, chauvinistic and historically false." The key point that I kept making repeatedly was that out of these four allegations ONLY "nationalist" was actually present in ANY of the sources provided (whether the sources for that one were RS or not is another matter). The allegation that the statements were "recognized as" "anti-Semitic, chauvinistic and historically false" are simply not present in any of the sources (Kalukin, Smolenski, Beczek, Czuchnowski, Karpinski).

I think the fact that sources were being misrepresented with a view towards attacking a BLP is important here. Volunteer Marek 09:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, a core issue here is that I'm not literate in Polish; claiming that something is not in a source is difficult even in a language one does read, so I'm simply not comfortable making a definitive claim about presence or absence. Now, on balance, I think your characterization is likely correct given Robere's corroboration and my limited attempts at machine translation, but I would rather present the conversation and sources so that others can come to their own conclusions from the evidence.

To the thrust of your appeal here, I don't see how sources were being misrepresented with a view towards attacking a BLP is borne out by the conversation presented in your evidence. That the claims were negative or contentious is objectively true, but "misrepresented with a view towards attacking" to my reading implies some element of intent that I'm not seeing. In Mhorg's 17:08, 27 April 2021 comment, he seems to explain that these are summaries of the cited articles: For example this article accuses him of an anti-Semitic discourse,[10] while this article is incentrated to his "mythological" (historically false) view of the past in a nationalist\chauvinistic way.[11] Now of course that kind of paraphrasing of sources to come to value judgments is incorrect per our BLP policy, but it's not clear that the goal was to attack given the obvious alternative of poor translation. For example, I suspect most English speakers will view the equation of "mythological" with "historically false" as incorrect, but that requires a robust understanding of how "mythological" is used in English to cover both fables and historical narrative. François Robere rightly points out to Mhorg (in the 28 April comments you link) that this approach to source interpretation is incorrect, and then (it seems) the issue is dropped for a month. So I think it's plain from the summary that there was an issue w.r.t. the BLP policy, but I haven't seen evidence that this dispute was in bad faith. If I'm missing something obvious though feel free to point me to it.

As for the early June dispute, I think your characterization here erases too much nuance. In my reading you two seem to be talking past each other. François takes issue with three edits, linking each. You link the first one (the "nationalist, anti-Semitic,..." claim removal) but then say "and rest" which means you presumably intended to respond to all three, but the third edit François linked includes an unrelated removal cited to sources you said were "too weak". In fact, the claim you made at first was NONE OF THE SOURCES actually call him these things (emphasis original) so the point you're making now, The key point that I kept making repeatedly was that out of these four allegations ONLY "nationalist" was actually present in ANY of the sources provided is not entirely correct. François points out that some sources might characterize him or his views as "nationalist" (again, I don't read Polish so can't verify) and reiterates his concerns regarding the other edits he linked before. You reiterate your issues w.r.t. the BLP policy which (from your statements) seems meant to cover all three edits but was only mentioned in the first. From there the conversation devolves as François focuses on the 3rd edit and you focus on the 1st, ultimately getting nowhere. In my reading, nothing there seems inconsistent or like intentional misrepresentation of sources, it just looks like two people talking about fundamentally different things without realizing it, and framing it as The key point that I kept making repeatedly was that out of these four allegations ONLY "nationalist" was actually present in ANY of the sources provided (whether the sources for that one were RS or not is another matter). would erase the entire other side of that miscommunication. — Wug·a·po·des 20:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Please consider adding K.e. Coffman as a party

(the below motion is addressed to ArbCom members only - please do not respond if you aren't one)

After a thoughtful reflection, I came to the conclusion that in order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the issue in the topic area, it would be advisable that the committee includes K.e. Coffman as a party. Including them could help the committee in gaining a well-rounded understanding of the different viewpoints and arguments related to the topic. In my humble opinion, it would also provide a more complete understanding of problems in the topic area. K.e. Coffman has been referenced multiple times in G&K essay and has been known to be a vocal supporter of Icewhiz, particularly in campaigns to remove mentions of Polish Righteous from Holocaust articles on Wikipedia, as evidenced by their edits (diffs available upon request). Samples of K.e. Coffman's problematic edits also include:

• Removal of content from an article about the Canadian Polish Congress that damaged article about an organization. (G&K has accused CPC of being right-wing) Removal of referenced content violated WP:ABOUTSELF.
• Removal of information from the Częstochowa Ghetto article with misleading edit summary. Lux Veritatis Foundation has not been declared unreliable at RSN (Reliable Sources Noticeboard) yet and the information removed by K.e. Coffman was also sourced to Yad Vashem. Note also an activity of a sock puppet on that article and compare to it to edit by K.e. Coffman.
• K.e. Coffman was also reverting to versions edited by other obvious sock-puppets restoring references from seriously low-quality news pieces and amateur historians, which raises questions and inconsistency in her approach. This was all raised on the talk page of Military enrolment in German-occupied Poland, specifically in the context of the Selbstschutz article, but K.e. Coffman has not responded to these issues.

Excluding K.e. Coffman from being a party may result in an understanding gap. Ultimately, whether or not to include K.e. Coffman as a party would be up to the committee members to decide. However, considering Coffman's known heavy involvement and her one-sided positions in the topic area, including her as a party could contribute to a more complete knowledge of the issue and ensure that all relevant perspectives are considered in the committee's deliberations. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC) — GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock puppet of Jacurek (talk · contribs).

@GizzyCatBella, are there special circumstances that would suggest we should consider this now? The deadline for adding new parties was originally March 21 and was extended to March 23 after a request. I don't see any diffs above after that date. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 - K.e.coffman has presented evidence against me in a certain context, but I initially didn't think it was important and appropriate to respond with similar evidence (see the above examples). Like any individual, K.e.coffman may have limitations in their knowledge or expertise in subject matter, and I believe they have strong biases that affect their editing decisions... but I see them as a net positive to the project that keeps the required balances in the articles. However, there have been further developments since then, such as the emergence of evidence posted by former adversaries of one side who are taking advantage of the situation to get back at their opponents. These developments have caused me to change my mind and now I believe that responding with evidence is necessary in light of the changing circumstances. If you, as a committee, decide not to include Coffman as a party, please consider my message in your final decision-making process. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC) — GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock puppet of Jacurek (talk · contribs).

I must be missing something here @GizzyCatBella. The evidence K.e. coffman posted against you was posted March 20 (though almost all of it was there by March 19) so there was time before either deadline to have written evidence at that time and you made a choice not to. Now you tell us why you want to make a different choice. At its most straightforward reading, I read your explanation as to why you've changed your mind as "K.e. coffman presented evidence against me and because other editors are presenting evidence against people they've had conflict with I want to present evidence at K.e. coffman". I find it hard to believe anyone as experienced as you would so plainly admit to battleground behavior like this. Especially because when I consider the full context I read However, there have been further developments since then, such as the emergence of evidence posted by former adversaries of one side who are taking advantage of the situation to get back at their opponents as "Evidence has been presented against editors I like/support so now I want to present evidence against someone who has targeted me to even things up". So what am I missing here? Barkeep49 (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 - I apologize if my previous response may have inadvertently conveyed the impression that my motives for providing additional evidence were driven by a desire for revenge or to "even things up". I want to clarify that this is not the case. My sincere intention was to provide the committee with genuine information in pursuit of truth, with the aim of fostering a better understanding of the situation in the topic area. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC) — GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock puppet of Jacurek (talk · contribs).

K.e. coffman's contributions are frequently coming up in the evidence which is with-in scope as are several other non-party editors. So in this sense Arbs can and will definitely consider them when thinking about the topic area as a whole. And as Jehochman points out below, something that has been on the minds of arbs is what might be necessary to handle new disruption that happens after the end of the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I will add that if you would like to rebut (e.g. K.e. coffman got facts wrong) or give more context to any of the summarised evidence against you, including by K.e. coffman you can definitely do that during the second evidence phase which is scheduled to open in a few hours. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• Gizzy, I’m commenting as a person who for some time has wanted to see a process like this happen. Now that it’s happening I want people to recognize past errors and improve. I don’t necessarily want anybody to be sanctioned, but if ArbCom does make some sanctions, I don’t expect them to cover everyone who could be sanctioned. I believe there will be general sanction and that Arbitration Enforcement will be available should it be needed to stop future misbehavior. You might consider WP:ROPE a good approach. This process doesn’t have to solve all problems. We should hope for a nice step forward and for everyone to understand how to follow best practices when editing the topic area. Jehochman ^Talk 19:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Jehochman - I understand your view and would like to emphasize the significance of promoting constructive dialogue to help editors understand and follow best practices in order to address past errors and prevent future misbehaviour. Engaging in open and respectful dialogues, actively listening to diverse perspectives, and finding common ground can lead to more sustainable and positive outcomes in the long run.

  However, I respectfully disagree with the principle of WP:ROPE being relied upon as the strategy for addressing conflicts or issues of this challenging case.

  In conclusion (in my humble opinion) - ArbCom should carefully evaluate all relevant evidence to address the issues , even those evidence delivered after deadlines. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC) — GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock puppet of Jacurek (talk · contribs).

Thanks. I’m glad we can agree partially. I am sure ArbCom will do their best, and I will be happy for any substantial progress. Jehochman ^Talk 02:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Summary of "History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II"

@Wugapodes, I'm not sure about this sentence from the summary: [Volunteer Marek] also removing text associated with Farkash in line with the previously mentioned discussion as I don't think that this edit [76] was "in line" with previous discussions (here and here). As far as I see, Piotrus's concerns about Farkash were addressed by Buidhe and solved to their mutual satisfaction. Piotrus's edits per REDFLAG of the 27 December 2019 were reverted by Icewhiz SP, but Buidhe mediated and together with Piotrus modified the article from 29 December to 1 January. If one compares the 26 December 2019 version with the 4 January 2020 version [77] one can see that most (perhaps all?) of Piotrus' proposals were accepted:

1. Added attributiion "Survivors recalled that..." to sentence "Polish supervisors beat Jews";
2. Talia Farkash is no longer called a "historian";
3. Removed sentence "Some people tried to escape ... The majority were killed by the Home Army or German authorities" (cited to Farkash);
4. Removed reference "by the Home Army" from the sentence "fifty Jews escaped from the camp during the evacuation, but most were killed...";
5. Added "According to Farkash" to the sentence "in 1943, Wenkert allowed a group of Jewish partisans into the camp, seeking refuge from a hostile unit of the Polish Home Army resistance group".
6. Also the talk page discussions give ample evidence of two editors collaborating and finding a consensus; see also the FAN discussion, where Piotrus no longer raises the question of Farkash's reliability.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: That was summarized by Barkeep49, so I'd want his input before making broad changes. I think it would be fine to change the line from in line with to citing to make clear the source of that characterization. — Wug·a·po·des 20:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Whoops. My bad. I thought you had summarised it as it is different than the style I've used for a lot of timeline work and after a couple of pings about it said Gitz should ping you. So that's on me. Let me more substantively dive in. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Wait looks like we're both wrong. Seems like it was Primefac, and you added some context elsewhere later. — Wug·a·po·des 20:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I had guessed it was you but felt fairly sure it wasn't me so I'm relieved that my core idea was correct. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Changed to the language proposed by Wugapodes. Primefac (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this, @Primefac.

I have a second request concerning this evidence summary. It reports 25-26 May: A group of editors not named in this case edit war over the inclusion of a tag on the above content. Two additions and two removals are made overall. In my evidence submission I specified the usernames of the involved editors, and I would like Chumchum7 to be mentioned because of their edits [78][79]. The reason I'm asking this is that Chumchum7 is a WP:VALIDALT who has submitted evidence against me in this case, and in my rebuttal I might address their own behaviour and attitudes. Although they are not a party to this case (which is perhaps unfortunate), they are certainly not uninvolved editors/editors not named in this case. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

To substantiate the above, note that in their edit summaries Chumchum7 asked for an accurate citation with quote, which had already been posted on the talk page by Buidhe at 07:17, 19 May 2021. On the talk page, Chumchum7 made 61 edits (15.1% of the total), while their overall contribution to the writing of the article equates to 0%. All their comments were posted between 25 May-12 June 2021, during the edit war, to support Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I did not specify the editors in the 25-26 May edit war because they are not named parties, and as such did not feel that specifically naming them was relevant. We are not accepting evidence against non-named parties at this point in time (that deadline passed a few weeks ago) so much like this discussion further down the page, while we will take evidence related to non-parties as indicators of a broad topic-wide set of issues, simply providing evidence against a non-party as a means to get them sanctioned will likely be removed. Primefac (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

My point is not to get them sanctioned though, but rather to prove in my rebuttal that they are deeply involved and biased and thus not reliable in their assessment of my behaviour. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

One of the main reasons we are trying this summary-style of evidence collecting is to try and avoid bias in the presented text based on who presented it. If there is content that has been summarised that needs explanation/rebuttal/etc, then yes, that is acceptable to provide more context as this is one of the reasons we have the second evidence phase. Primefac (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Evidence phase 2 open

The second evidence phase has opened. During the second evidence phase, only evidence that rebuts other evidence (see Rebuttals below) or which answers a question posed by an arbitrator will be allowed. Any evidence which does not meet this standard may be removed, collapsed, closed, or otherwise addressed by an Arbitrator or clerk without warning. Please read the instructions at the start of the evidence page for more information and details about how this phase works. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure I fully understand this instruction.

• It says: "You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format." It my section this one? If yes, should I create new subsections, or I add information to the existing sections?
• It says: "During the second evidence phase, only evidence (...) which answers a question posed by an arbitrator will be allowed." What is considered a question? Thus, should the words "Might fit in with future evidence, though" be considered a question, and do "future evidences" refer to the 2nd phase?
• In addition, what should I do if I find the summary incomplete or inaccurate?

Paul Siebert (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes it's the one you linked. You should not change anything that's been collapsed. You may start a new subsection or write below the collapsed text. A question is either something posed directly to you on the evidence page (does not apply to you) or is listed here. Evidence not yet summarized is not a question. If you wish to appeal a summary start a new discussion on this page. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. How should I interpret the remarks like "Not summarised for now, could potentially fit in with future evidence", "Might fit in with future evidence, though" etc. Does it mean I some "future evidences" are expected from me? Paul Siebert (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing more expected from you. It's a way of the drafters saying "We've considered this, acknowledge it's in scope, and might summarize it later if it becomes relevant to other evidence". Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Few typos/code errors to fix in the evidence summary

Perhaps a clerk or someone friendly admin can fix those techical errors at summary?

• "Piotrus Diff/1142226813|stated a belief " - missing [[]]
• " about Polish Righteous Among the Nations and [[36]] a talk page" - [[36]] is a misformatted pipe for "begun")
• "[Special Diff/1004258993&oldid=1004258957|21:47, 1 February 2021]] (to K.e.coffman)" - missing [ in front
• "Gitz6666 Diff/1143854620 proceeded " - probably needs a pipe formatting
• headings "Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust (Gitz6666)=" and "Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust (Marcelus)=" need an extra = and the text in those sections needs a space removed for formatting reasons

There are also quote a few diffs that don't appear to go to the correct pieces of evidence, although listing them and needed fixes would be quite time consuming. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I believe I have fixed them. I have a bit more evidence to summarise but I'll see what I can do about the links to the original evidence. Primefac (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Harv errors

There are currently 45 Harv errors on this page, based on User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors. Update: seems like most are caused by anchor name mismatches — DFlhb (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC) update 19:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Correction: the errors are on the evidence summary page, whose talk page redirects to this one. DFlhb (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Evidence against Marcelus (me)

Why is the whole The Forgotten Holocaust section in the section about me? My username stops appearing in the summary about halfway through. I also don't quite understand what the "evidence" against me is in this case. Overall I have made 5 points throughout the discussion:

1. That the article should not be TNT

2. That Drobnicki's positive review should not be included.

3. That the negative statement about Lukas by Cooper should not be included, as off-topic.

4. That Hoffman's positive review should be included.

5. That the entire discussion in the Slavic Review including the statements of the author himself, even if he had the "last word", should be reported.

Summary only cites my comments on TNT and Hoffman. Without explaining what they are evidence of. Marcelus (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus because we have been cross-referencing sections, if there is substantial evidence about a party the whole section will appear for them. In terms of what's missing, this is exactly why we have the rebuttal period and so you should submit into evidence the other context you think should be there. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Wrong link

The link on the evidence summary page for 21:47, 1 February 2021 is missing a : , hence appearing as a red link. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Scope?

@Barkeep49 Can you tell me how is this within the scope of this case? I think ~90% of these are outside of the scope understood as defined in the FAQ (WWII history of Poland + history of Jews in Poland). Within the scope of the case I counted only three discussions, including one we disagreed at. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

thoughts about scope from 2 parties

Frankly, I think it is too limited. The interactions within the topic area extended beyond WWII and even beyond Poland (mainly to Ukraine, both historical and present), and yet they're all clear extensions of what happened within. For example, LGBT-free zone was started by Icewhiz, who no doubt understood some editors were friendly to certain conservative positions; it quickly drew several involved editors, including VM, Piotrus, MyMoloboaccount, GCB/Jacurek (once their T-ban was lifted), Trasz, Buidhe, and myself. It's a similar case with Ełk riots, Tadeusz Wojda, Rainbow Madonna, "Never Again" Association, and a few others (cf. [80]). The connecting thread is that they all touch on in/tolerance, minority rights and the public image of Poland, not necessarily on its WWII history or its Jewish community. François Robere (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Which would be an entirely different case named "Human rights in Poland". The thread linked by Piotrus is also out of scope, that would be case named "Piotrus". My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I've been thinking about this since I first saw the comment but since I'm continuing to think, I thought it important to acknowledge that I'd seen this at this point. The dilemma for me is that unlike most things that have been ruled out of scope, I would anticipate if there was off-wiki coordination in violation of policies and guidelines it would ultimately be ArbCom, not other establish community processes, that would declare it. And further, I have noted that I find the constant accusations of off-wiki coordination itself disruptive at several points (of which there has been evidence put forward about Icewhiz, as well as you, VM, Jacurek/GCB, etc). So I would like to give a bit more leeway here for people to make their best case and if that case isn't compelling I'd like to make that clear in the decision. That way going forward "run of the mill" accusations could be directed there as refutation and/or used when requesting sanction. But your point about scope is also reasonable (and true). Hence why I've been thinking about it. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 Thank you. That's fair. Since scope is a technicality, I'd just like to say, on the record, that I did not ask GCB, off-wiki, to join any disussion, AfD, or otherwise. If I have time, I'll see about posting some additional analysis regarding this, although I think anything I can say boils down to the issue that I've taken part in several thousand AfDs, and if GCB followed me to a few dozens, she did it out of her own will, but I cannot conclusively prove it (since it would require proving a negative). One thing that I can prove is that within the scope of our case here, me and GCB did not always agree. I pointed out one AfD above (from 2018), here are two others, more recent, from last year, for your consideration: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leśni, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Józef Biss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Summarizing evidence

Will the procedure in this case be for the Committee as a whole to focus on evidence that is summarized on the summary page, rather than on the original evidence on the evidence page?

I can see that, as we approach the end of the evidence and analyses phases, there is phase 1 evidence on the main evidence page that has not been summarized, and not been hatted as out of scope or otherwise designated as unlikely to be considered. Just there in the form that it was originally submitted. It's unclear, without an explanation from the Committee, how those bits of evidence are regarded, and I'm concerned that some relevant information might slip through the cracks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The intention is to have everything either summarised or hatted, yes. Primefac (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I see now that one part of my evidence was hatted, but not (that I can see) summarized on the summary page – with an explicit recommendation that the rest of the Committee take a look at it and decide for themselves ([81]). This leads me back to the first sentence of my question above. If there is an implied message that the "important" evidence has been summarized on the summary page, how confident can I be that the evidence I posted in that section will be looked at by the Committee? It's pretty clear that the evidence is being treated as in-scope and relevant, and yet it is not being summarized. I'm not sure what not-being-summarized means, if anything, and whether there is a risk that it will not get full consideration. (Obviously, having an evidence summary page is something new in ArbCom case procedure, so I'm unsure of what the procedure is in this regard.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Tryptofish's evidence

@Primefac: Regarding this hatting of User:Tryptofish's evidence,

• is the Committee reaffirming that it does not consider statements made in the journal article as having violated the outing policy or
• is it merely saying that it does not consider it necessary to issue a correction at this time? --Andreas JN466 11:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Tryptofish asked the committee to check the evidence and make any corrections. The matter has been discussed internally, and there are no corrections necessary. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Well, allow me to phrase my question differently then. I am trying to understand your reasoning here.

It seems to me you and your colleagues are arguing that User:Volunteer Marek's mere on-wiki mention (as opposed to a link) of a doxing site holding personal information about him, made over thirteen years ago, means that editors are free to share any present and future personal information held about him on that doxing site, on- and off-wiki, today and for the indefinite future. Is that correct?

Perhaps I am missing information, but I am not aware of any other disclosures of personal information Volunteer Marek has made on Wikipedia. If he indeed made any that you are factoring into your assessment, kindly say so. Regards, Andreas JN466 12:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I have explained my individual reasoning (which is shared in part or in whole by some other arbs, with some Arbs having their own ressons) and you understood it well enough to write to the board about it. You disagree with my reasoning. No problem but that doesn't obligate me to repeatedly engage with you about it. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I respect your wish to not engage further with me about it – at least you have engaged – but please note that our previous discussion and my letter to the Board were about the Universal Code of Conduct. The present discussion concerns your application of an English Wikipedia policy, i.e. WP:OUTING.

At any rate, I take it that there are no further disclosures by VM that factored into your assessment. Regards, Andreas JN466 12:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• ArbCom should avoid projecting consequences from Wikipedia to real life via its open case pages. However, ArbCom cannot prevent users from being identified on third party sites, or do much about it, except in very limited cases. For instance, if an editor uses a third party site to dox a second editor as a form of harassment, that might be actionable. However, I don’t see how an academic paper posted by a non-Wikipedia editor and an occasional editor with no direct conflicts with the subjects of the paper could be regulated by ArbCom. On the other hand, Wikipedia accounts are not anonymous. They are de-identified. There is a big difference. De-identified data can be re-identified. Editors should recognize this risk and refrain from editing that might endanger themselves or their reputation because Wikipedia cannot guarantee anonymity. Jehochman ^Talk 13:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think these are all things to be discussed and pondered. But we can't have policies and a Universal Code of Conduct with sweeping statements described as binding for all Wikimedia contributors and then apply them selectively depending on who it was that broke them. If there are to be exceptions, then they need to be spelled out, so contributors know what to expect.

  Note that the EU has just classified Wikipedia as a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP). This means that Wikipedia will have to comply with additional requirements under the Digital Services Act, including one specifically stating Platforms need to have clear terms and conditions and enforce them diligently and non-arbitrarily. Andreas JN466 13:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  We're not acting as lawyers here. It's not our job. Moreover, the legislators who make these laws are not computer scientists and they often have unreasonable expectations. ArbCom should avoid further doxing of any user, but it is not required to ignore information that's already in the public sphere. If a user does not like the presence of public information we should refrain from re-posting it, as a courtesy, in addition to complying with policy. A good approach is for such information to be mailed to ArbCom in private. As for the G&K article, that's already so prominent that it would be useless for Wikipedia to try to pretend it doesn't exist. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. But it is not an unreasonable expectation that a clearly stated policy or code of conduct that expressly applies to all Wikimedia contributors should be enforced impartially, without fear or favour.

  I am not arguing that we should pretend the essay doesn't exist; that horse has long bolted, as you say. But where an author is also a Wikimedian, they must be held to the same standard as all other Wikimedians. If that leads to undesirable results, then the Code or policy must be adjusted accordingly, but that is a matter for the board and community, respectively, not for ArbCom to do on an ad-hoc basis. --Andreas JN466 15:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, if you believe that the UCOC and English Wikipedia policy do not align, this case is also not the place for you to attempt to change either of those two documents. Please move on; your continued participation here has stopped being useful. Izno (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  I thank Andreas/JN for raising the issue, but I also accept that it's time (for me, at least) to drop the stick. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Excellent point, IMO the odds of our semi-anonymity surviving the AI era is effectively zero. Anybody who thinks their contributions will remain in any way anonymous in the long term is delusional. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

There are outing/doxing situations where public discussion worsens the harm. Folks should be aware of that when pressing for such. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Some broken connections

There are some broken connections (mostly on the main evidence page I think) caused by the removal of the evidence relating to GizzyCatBella. Can this be put on the "To Tidy Up" list if there is one? It's a bit weird having sections which say "summarised at section XYZ", only to find that said summary doesn't exist (anymore). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a skim through and strike any hat language that is no longer valid. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)