Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

The Arbitration Committee has directed that discussion on this page must be sectioned. Unless you are an arbitrator or clerk, create a section for your comments and comment only in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv 🍁 14:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Does my topic ban (details [1]) applies for posting evidence and commenting? If so, I would like to have it waived for that purposes, please. Thank you. GizzyCatBella ( talk) 15:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ GizzyCatBella: Since your topic ban is not under consideration at this case, this is not one of the valid exemptions listed at WP:BANEX. However, you are welcome to submit evidence by email to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. – bradv 🍁 20:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Bradv: Thank you, I'll forward my evidence and testimony by e-mail. Best Regards GizzyCatBella ( talk) 21:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Bradv: - can I receive a copy of this private evidence by GizzyCatBella  ? I will note I considered naming GizzyCatBella as a party to the case (due to the circumstances leading to their ban, and some of their edits afterwards) - but did not in light of their already existing ban (which excludes them from much, but not all, of the topic). Icewhiz ( talk) 07:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Icewhiz: I'll pass along this request to the committee. Regards, -- Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• @ My very best wishes:, @ Stefka Bulgaria: probably just slipped one diff to your second diff on the page, he probably should've linked diff - where you are supporting this content as "well sourced info" while it is actually sourced to a Tripod blog (please do read WP:UGS) and a Hungarian MoD PR release which doesn't not contain the information it is being used to source. Well sourced indeed. I do suggest Stefka correct his mistake in the diff. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Request for a word+diff extension

Can I please have a wordcount and diff extension? The hounding diffs take up many diffs. And I can't really present misrepresentations of sources without using words (generic personal-attacks / casting aspersions / etc. - can be described with great brevity, but source misuse? Unless I leave this at a totally unclear "not so", I can't see how I can point out what isn't in the source (or contradicted by the cited source) without some more words). I will try to trim and be succinct as much as possible. Thanks! Icewhiz ( talk) 17:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Icewhiz, I would appreciate any further effort you can make to trim your evidence section. The arbitrators are going to try to use this information to establish "Findings of Facts", so an effort to be concise and clearly present facts relevant to this case would be appreciated. Thanks. – bradv 🍁 21:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I will try - I'm still adding diffs (not much text) - and after that I will trim. Can I at least assume that article names and date/time in the hounding table are not words? I could just do diff/diff ([1]/[2]) - the formatting here makes it more legible however. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• @ AGK: - I am confused by the current word count, as it doesn't match what I get from throwing the text into wordcounter.net. Do references, and quotes in refs, count as well? I put them in with full quotes to save time for whomever wants to check that the content does not match the cited source. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Please add Piotrus as a party

@ Bradv:, @ SQL:, @ AGK: - While well mannered and compromising, Piotrus has been promoting dubious sources over the past two years. In recent days - (he actually presented this in his evidence, which is how I got to it) - [2] [3] [4] - he has been adding content sourced to pamiecitozsamosc.pl (per about: "the result of many years of research carried out by the Lux Veritatis Foundation") run by Lux Veritatis Foundation (Rydzyk), which probably counts as self-published, and is "Lux Veritas Foundation run by the ultra-conservative and nationalistic redemptorist Tadeusz Rydzyk, infamous for his anti-Semitic enunciations" (from: Wóycicka, Zofia. "Global patterns, local interpretations: new polish museums dedicated to the rescue of Jews during the Holocaust." Holocaust Studies (2019): 1-25.). Promoting such content on Wikipedia should not be acceptable. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC) reply

It is very hard to see this as a good faith mistake - Rydzyk is very well known in Poland and the nature of his media is very well known. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Response: Icewhiz - chance to clarify strange claim

In response to diff - VM in fact exhibits here a misunderstanding of WP:RS policy he has exhibited elsewhere - he repeatedly asserts "X is a RS" (X - name). e.g. - diff - "Gontarczyk may be WP:BIASed, which is why the statements need to be attributed directly to him, but he is still WP:RS and notable" (context: ""Gontarczyk's work represents a highly rationalized version of the ethno-nationalist approach, legitimizing anti-Jewish violence as national self defense, based on the perception of Jews not as a group included in the Polish nation but as an "alien and harmful nation"". per RS on historiography). There is a huge difference, WP:RS wise, between published academic research by a scholar (when published in a reputable journal or academic press) and the same scholar speaking in a radio or print interview (in both cases - in venues with some question marks - e.g. Hitler was a leftist - covering journalist involved (known also for Pact Ribbentrop - Beck)). Off the cuff remarks, un-vetted beyond attribution to scholar, are very different from published scholarship - written after the scholar has examined his writing carefully, with citations, and peer reviewed by other scholars. This is particularly pertinent when published scholarship by the scholar paints a different picture from what was being built off from a brief aside ("same applies...") in an interview.

Contents from interview: (Polish)

In regards to Polonsky - WP:NOENG applies as well (interview in Polish, academic book in English), as does WP:CHERRYPICK (the passage is mostly on Jakub Berman, Koniuchy mentioned in an aside - ""The same applies to the massacre in Koniuchy, pacification of the Naliboki and the role played by the Jewish partisans in them." - and the brief passage on Berman is after a long discussion of Żydokomuna in Poland). In any case while Polonsky (and others) may have an expert opinion - it is false to say "Polonsky is a RS" (let alone "Gontarczyk is a RS"). When scholars publish scholarship in reputable peer reviewed journals or academic books - yes - generally a RS. When scholars say something in an interview - it can be an attributed expert opinion. And in any case - we definitely prefer a few pages of academic writing, in English, over a brief aside ("the same applies...") in a non-English media interview - particularly so when the academic writing is subsequent to the aside in the interview. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Since in accepting the case the ArbCom acknowledged that WP:AE has been unable to resolve the dispute because it is so involved and complicated I'm unclear how a 1000 word limit will do anything... that AE can't do (AE is 500). The dispute spans two years and involves long term abuse (yes, by Icewhiz), including numerous BLP violations across many articles (using Wikipedia articles to attack authors of sources who don't fit his POV). To establish this, one must show a pattern. And showing a long term pattern is going to take more than 1000 words and 100 diffs.

Additionally, since we're expect to offer rebuttals in our own sections on the evidence page, there is just no way that 1000 words is adequate. As I've said over and over again - it is much harder, and it takes a lot more words, to explain why something is a lie, than to lie in the first place.

Basically, with the present word limit, this case is likely to be just a glorified version of a WP:AE report and about as effective/competent in addressing the dispute. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Volunteer Marek, the goal of the word limits is to encourage brevity, not to create an undue burden on participants in the case or prevent evidence from being submitted. Please feel free to put together your evidence as concisely as possible, and if it needs to be shortened further we will let you know. – bradv 🍁 13:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Quick question - do the rebuttals also go into our own evidence section (which will burn up the word limit and limit how much evidence we can present ourselves) or do they go somewhere else, like the Workshop? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 15:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Volunteer Marek, per the instructions at the top of the page, rebuttals go in your own section. – bradv 🍁 15:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Seriously? So basically whoever makes the most attacks on another editor, and whoever makes them as hyperbolic as possible, is given the advantage here, in terms of space? And this is suppose to... help resolve disputes and reduce WP:BATTLEGROUND? Lol. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 15:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Volunteer Marek, the idea is to reduce the back-and-forth between participants and to stick to the facts of the case (which should mostly take the form of diffs). The arbitrators are quite capable of discounting unsupported allegations on their own. – bradv 🍁 15:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I hope so. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 15:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Bradv: Btw Brad, as much as I disagree with how this is conducted, I do very much appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 15:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Bradv: Sorry, one more question. How do we propose adding someone to the case? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Volunteer Marek, at this point parties may only be added to the case at the discretion of the arbitrators. You may make your case here and I'll draw their attention to it, or you may email the arbitrators privately with your request. – bradv 🍁 17:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Wait, Bradv, so can we post "analysis of Evidence" in the Workshop? Like not exactly "rebuttals" but ... "analysis" or clarifications? Also, who is User:Stefka Bulgaria and what is she doing here (afaik never seen them in this topic area before) and why is Icewhiz clarifying "what she really meant" for her? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Volunteer Marek, the "Analysis of Evidence" section is generally used by arbitrators and other participants to organize their thoughts about the evidence presented and prepare items for the workshop. It's not for rebuttals, responses, or extra evidence, and it wouldn't be appropriate to use that to get around word limits on the evidence page. As I said to Icewhiz above, presenting diffs to support establishing "Findings of Facts" relevant to this case is the stage we're in right now. – bradv 🍁 21:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Bradv AGK The Workshop page states: "The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case (...) can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others." (my emphasis). It also says "Any user may edit this workshop page" (my emphasis). The "Analysis of evidence" section has the instruction to "Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis". So it seems this is indeed like the place to discuss evidence presented by others, some of which will inevitably involve a "rebuttal". Also, there's a couple "meta" issues here, like what kind of sourcing is acceptable. Some discussion regarding these aspects is already taking place over at Paul Siebert's page (also here) (@ Paul Siebert:). I think it would be good if these discussions which so far have been... at least somewhat constructive, took place in full view of the ArbCom. But since this involves lots of back and forth (not necessarily "bickering" but just a general discussion) word limits won't work here. The Workshop seems like an ideal place for such discussions (perhaps its talk page?). And I recall that this was in fact the original primary purpose of the Workshop page back in the day. I guess it got "bureaucratized" at some point, along with other parts of Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Bradv AGK - I would also like to request an extension on the word limit. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ AGK: Well, last time I had anything to do with an ArbCom case was over 10 years ago, but back then it was actually the Workshop page where most of the rebuttals of other editors' accusations would go, as "Analysis of Evidence". Which made sense since it's actually the rebuttals that burn up most of the word limit (as I've said several times already, it takes just a single sentence to accuse, it takes multiple paragraphs to explain why a particular accusation is bunk. Sheesh, I feel like I need to write a full Snopes type fact-cheking article for every "meme" -ish type accusations that others make. That would leave the space in Evidence page for actual diffs. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Moved from #Comment by K.e.coffman

Agree with K.e.coffman here. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 03:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Volunteer Marek: There is a thread regarding the name of this case here. SQL ^{Query me!} 15:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Add User:François Robere to the case

Since User:François Robere has chosen to make himself a part of this case by posting extensive evidence, and since he and Icewhiz regularly edit together [5] (sometimes within seconds of each other on same article or talk page - about 60-70 articles in the topic area), and ALWAYS in agreement with one another, and since François Robere almost always shows up in WP:AE and other drama board discussions to support Icewhiz I propose that he be added to the case as a party. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC) reply

FR, I've been editing about three times as long as you (since 2005, vs since 2013) and in this topic area about seven times as long as you (2005 vs 2017) so yeah, there is more overlap between my edits and Icewhiz's than yours and Icewhiz's (this also illustrates that he followed me to a lot of these not vice versa). The overlap between you and Icewhiz is all within the last two years and it's pretty close. Also, you claim you don't "always agree" with Icewhiz. Maybe. But honestly, I've been looking through hundreds of diffs, dozens of discussions in compiling my evidence and I cannot find a SINGLE instance where you two disagree. Can you provide some instances where you guys disagree to back up your claim? I mean, just by probability and randomness alone, such few instances should exist. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC) reply

So, User:François Robere - can you actually point me to ONE, single, discussion, where you and Icewhiz disagree on something? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I had the same question as FR. We were told just barely a few days ago to ask questions and for extensions here. Several people asked questions and asked for extensions. There was no reply. And then we get the (ominous voice) "the evidence is about to close!" message. Ok... but did I get the extension? Same thing goes for the proposals to add other parties to the case. In fact, some of these were made almost two weeks ago. No reply on that. Obviously, whether or not a particular person is part of the case affects what evidence you present. For example, I completely ignored FR, even though they attack me and even though I have tons of evidence I could post regarding them, simply because atm they're not a party. If they were I'd write the whole thing different. But we still don't know either way and (ominous voice) "the evidence is about to close!". How are we suppose to do anything under these circumstances? I understand that the ArbCom is busy, especially last couple weeks what with all the other drama that happened on Wikipedia and WMF, but that would've precisely been a good reason to extend the deadline by a few weeks. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Icewhiz - chance to clarify strange claim

User:Icewhiz says: we prefer an academic book (with a few pages of content on topic), in English, by Polonsky over a passing sentence (taken out of context) in an interview in Polish newspaper conducted by Piotr Zychowicz The actual problem is that you are pretending that the interview with Polonsky is not a source by Polonsky. How the hey does that work? What does it matter who the interviewer was? Are you claiming the interviewer falsified what Polonsky said? No? Then stop bringing it up as it's irrelevant. These are Polonsky's words. Your "we prefer an academic book" part is a red herring as that's not what we're discussing here. We can use BOTH the book with Polonsky and the interview with Polonsky, no? You're trying to set up a false dichotomy here so that you have an excuse to use one source by Polonsky (which you fits the preconceived POV narrative you wish to create) but reject another source by Polonsky (which doesn't fit the preconceived POV narrative you wish to create). This is peak cynicism and the very definition of WP:TENDENTIOUS. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Ugh, missed some - BLP vios against Gunnar Paulsson

@ Bradv: Ok, so evidence's closed, but in compiling the evidence against Icewhiz, because there's so much to chose from, I did miss another instance of him attacking BLPs which I think is particularly important and that's his attacks on the historian Gunnar S. Paulsson, where, again Icewhiz tries to stuff the article full of negative reviews of the subject's work, and describes him in derisive terms ("mid-life History PhD" (why the f does that matter?)), speculates about the subject's tenure at a university (just like with Norman Davies) and emphasizes a minor lawsuit the subject was involved in on talk. Even User:K.e.coffman, who has otherwise consistently supported Icewhiz, thought this was a bit too much and told him to lay off [6] [7].

This particular violation is important because it shows Icewhiz will attack not just Polish historians, but also British, American, Israeli and in this case, Swedish, if they don't agree with his POV. The pettiness and the practice of turning these BLP subjects articles into attack pages is potentially quite dangerous and harmful to the subjects' careers. It goes 100% against what Wikipedia is suppose to be about.

It's probably to late too include this somewhere in my evidence but I do want it noted as it's a particularly obnoxious violation and also part of a bigger pattern. Pinging clerk just in case this doesn't belong here. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply

And here too, derisively calling Paulsson "Polocaust proponent" (uses offensive derogatory term) and contrasting him, without any back up, with "mainline scholars" (sic), which falsely suggests Paulsson is FRINGE. He's not. He's the author of one of the authoritative books on the subject. Man, it's like you pick an edit by Icewhiz at random, and it's problematic. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Moved from #Comments by Icewhiz

Same, unless it is posted in public later. While I'm not a party to this case, GCB and I had much back-and-forth in this area, and I'd like the chance to review her comments if they enter the record. François Robere ( talk) 21:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Bradv: Requesting a length exception for the tables I just added. I'll try to keep other commentary brief. François Robere ( talk) 23:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC) reply

François Robere, you are at 500 words without either of the tables you have added. An extension could be granted by an arbitrator if you have additional evidence you would like to add in the form of diffs, but this does not appear to qualify. I would suggest removing both tables. – bradv 🍁 23:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I can probably trim everything else to fit in 500 words, and cut the tables either to the source links (and present the analysis later) or to the conclusions (and discard the source material), but I'd rather have the full version available somewhere for the sake of transparency. It's nice hurling diffs at each other, but much of the case lies on the trends across an entire topic area over (almost) a year and a half, so a broader analysis could prove highly beneficial. François Robere ( talk) 01:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Bradv: Everything outside the tables and attached explanations is under 500 words; including explanations, under 600 words. The tables themselves are basically just source material... François Robere ( talk) 09:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Bradv: Recount? François Robere ( talk) 16:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Bradv: Does the committee take into account TE/SPA as part of these proceedings? François Robere ( talk) 17:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC) reply

François Robere, I'm not sure exactly what you're after, but if there's evidence of tendentious editing that can be presented. – bradv 🍁 19:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ My very best wishes: Which is why I added the RfC analysis. It shows you how far some editors are from the consensus (which includes uninvolved editors), and by extension from DUE and NEUTRALITY. François Robere ( talk) 17:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ SQL: Some claims have been made against me by another editor, but I'm at the word limit. Request extension. François Robere ( talk) 10:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ François Robere:, I've passed your request on to the mailing list. We'll let you know when we hear back. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Volunteer Marek: Just to counter your points below (without swerving too much into "evidence", like you):

1. I'm probably the first editor to have trimmed down his "evidence" portion to 500 words. If that's at all an indicator, you should fancy adding Piotrus, Paul Siebert half the rest to the case.
2. You've interpreted the interaction history all wrong: I do not collaborate with Icewhiz, I "hound" him. That's why our "interaction history" is only a quarter as long as yours. [8] But of course, you deny both hounding and collaboration, so it must be dumb luck.
3. I hardly always agree with Icewhiz, it's just that I'm much better than you are at disagreeing civilly, so when he and I disagree (or Piotrus and I, or most anyone else and I) it doesn't look like anyone needs stitches.
4. It's true that on occasion I show up on AE. Last time, I recall, was for the very same reason: trying to get me involved in this case as a party. I know some girls may like the attention; personally, I find it disturbing. François Robere ( talk) 17:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC) reply

This isn't "evidence", and I won't prosecute it with you. I will say this: I didn't propose adding some of our 'colleagues' as parties merely for agreeing with you; agreeing, or disagreeing, isn't enough for being a party to this case. François Robere ( talk) 23:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Of course, you just need to look at the table. [9] We disagreed in a couple of AfD discussions. François Robere ( talk) 12:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ SQL: How should we deal with the word extension and the time limit? Shall I add my second evidence section and you will trim it - and only it - in case an extension is not granted? François Robere ( talk) 16:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC) reply

François Robere, I have asked the arbitrators to review and respond to the various requests for extensions here. Without further comment from them the evidence phase will close sometime on the 23rd with whatever evidence is on the page at that time. – bradv 🍁 17:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I second VM on the word limit being too short. In particular, it prevents parties from presenting their own analysis of diffs, and makes rebuttals very difficult.

I also think GCB should be allowed to post any evidence she wishes in public. I would like to see it too, and perhaps other parties as well.

Lastly, I am unsure if the content of my current section is actually 'evidence', and I'd appreciate comment on whether it should be moved to a different arbcom page or talk. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC) reply

What is the word limit now? One party has presented evidence that while not finished yet has already over 3k words. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Piotrus, the word limit remains 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties to the case, and 500 words and 50 diffs for other participants. I have asked Icewhiz to shorten their evidence section above. – bradv 🍁 21:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC) reply

My very best wishes I think the connection is superficial. At most, there is some minor off wiki communication or such... shrug. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Starship.paint and Bradv I am confused about the 'rebuttals' that are supposed to be posted in evidence and whatever is supposed to go to the workshop. I'd have thought that rebuttals would be a part of workshop, not an evidence, but... I have to say that for 10+ years of history, ArbCom still hasn't evolved any friendly rules that make it easy for parties who are not ArbCom experts to figure out what to post where. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• I will speak with colleagues about these word limits. I think the best approach is to apply a word limit per issue, subject to prior approval, but we will come back to you shortly. AGK  ■ 08:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ AGK: As I've just reached my world limit but I feel I have more to say in another section or two I'd like to create, I'd very much appreciate some extension of a word limit. TIA. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Moved from #Comment by K.e.coffman

Ditto, and please note that I started a discussion about this at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland before comments even appeared here. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Moved from #Comments by MyMoloboaccount

So would I. I made a request to that effect few days ago but did not receive any indication it was noticed. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I Apologize for that, I hadn't noticed it - and I hadn't seen anyone raise it on the mailing list. I will do so for you. SQL ^{Query me!} 22:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Moved from #Comments by Volunteer Marek

One of the options here is using Analysis of evidence in Workshop. I guess this is going to be used because the amount of ridiculous claims on the Evidence page is staggering. For example, user Stefka Bulgaria just posted a claim about my alleged "tag teaming" [10] and provided this diff (his #6) in support. No, I did not tag team with user ... Icewhiz by responding to his ping. Neither I tag team with anyone else. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC) reply

In response to Stefka Bulgaria, I should say that I was never in any off-wiki communication with any participants of this case during many years. I do watch what is going on WP:AE and some other noticeboards like BLPNB and RSNB and look at pages which are mentioned in discussions. That's how I came there. My very best wishes ( talk) 07:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• It would be a good idea if Arbs said which exactly diffs they think would be "incriminating" in the "Analysis of Evidence" section and allow parties to comment. My very best wishes ( talk) 14:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Here is one of general problems with the Evidence. Yes, certain edits/diffs (for example, here) can be perceived by a layperson as pro/anti Polish/Jewish. However, the question we should ask is different: was certain sourced information "due" on the page per WP:NPOV, and this is just a typical "content dispute" question. Also, a lot depends on perceptions. For example, placing information that someone who was obviously a Jew (as follows from the page) was also a notable communist implicated in crimes - is it something anti-Jewish? For someone who believes in the antisemitic canard of Jewish Bolshevism the answer is definitely "yes" because that implicates Jews in crimes. However, for someone who does not believe in this canard, the answer is "no"; this is just an important sourced information about the person that must be included per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC) reply

For example François Robere brings this edit by Molobo as "Jews are bad"". This is absurd. Yes, Molobo inserts sourced text, specifically about Jews who became targets. Why? Because this is page about "Anti-Jewish_violence_in_Poland". My very best wishes ( talk) 04:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• I agree with everyone about wrong/misleading name of the case. This case is not at all about antisemitism in Poland, and I did not see anything about antisemitism not only in my Evidence, but also in the evidence by others. My very best wishes ( talk) 14:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ My very best wishes: There is a thread regarding the name of this case here. SQL ^{Query me!} 15:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I find the word limits baffling. I estimate around 1600 words being written against VM, and 2300 words being written against Icewhiz. I'm not sure how either of them can adequately defend themselves in 1000 words. It seems like the shields will run out sooner or later - then the more shots fired, the more will land. starship .paint ( talk) 01:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC) reply

The limits are not absolute and any editor may request (by post at this page) an extension to their Evidence limits. AGK  ■ 08:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Okay, thank you AGK for the clarification. starship .paint ( talk) 08:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Case name

I wonder if the current case name unnecessarily limits the topic area under disputes. I feel that "Jewish-Polish relations" would cover the subject better. It also sounds more descriptive without passing a value judgement. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ K.e.coffman: There is a thread regarding the name of this case here. SQL ^{Query me!} 15:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I would like to extend the word limit allowed on this case. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 18:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I have raised this on the mailing list for you. SQL ^{Query me!} 22:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Do I understand that we have till end of 23 June to present evidence or till 23rd of June to do so? It isn't clear to me. I planned on finishing my evidence on Sunday 23rd-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 10:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ My very best wishes: Have you considered asking the clerks to add you as a party to this case? You'd get to have double the word count, and you seem rather involved anyways. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 19:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• question. @ Icewhiz: I see you are still editing the evidence page but have not weighed in here. Do you have anything thoughts? – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 19:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm totally uninvolved with this and my brain is too tiny to make any sense of what the dispute is about, so I'm not on any side. But MyMoloboaccount's claim

5.[198]Icewhiz falsified a source stating that villagers massacred by Soviet partisans were supposedly hunting down Jews.There is nothing about Naliboki village on page 280. I uploaded a screenshot from the source in question showing that there is nothing about villagers attacking Jews on page 280[199].Icewhiz then claimed the statement s is on page 283. Here is the screen of page 283-nothing about inhabitants of Naliboki village doing such a thing[200].Falsification.

seemed narrow and specific enough that I could check it directly. Surprisingly, even after reading the relevant sentence carefully, I still can't tell whether a falsification happened. I'm not worried about the page 280 vs page 283 discrepancy. Page 280 is where the cited article starts in the book, and 283 is the 3rd page of the article. MyMoloboaccount's screen shot (in part) says:

Another example of the complexity of social roles in genocide comes from the region of Naliboki forest in Belarus, portrayed in a widely read historical book (Tec, 1993) and popular film (Defiance). Here, the local Jewish partisan unit that consisted mainly of former ghetto-survivors fought as part of the Soviet underground and raided Belorussian and Polish villages, searching for food to supply Jewish survivors in the forest (Tec, 1993). The perceived need for self-defence against such raids led the formerly anti-fascist local branch of the Polish Home Army to collaborate with the Nazi police in killings of hidden Jews (Głuchowski and Kowalski, 2009; Grossman, 1988). In response, Soviet anti-fascist partisans, including Jewish survivors, took part in the killings of Polish civilians in some villages of this region (Perelman, 2003). This complex situation shows how the deprivation of basic needs (for food or personal security) in occupied territories placed some groups simultaneously into all possible roles of the perpetrator–victim–bystander triangle.

I underlined the sentence that I think is the disputed one. MyMolokoaccount's diff shows Icewhiz writing:

The self defense unit [[Collaboration in German-occupied Poland|collaborated]] with the Nazi police in the killing of hidden Jews.<ref>Bilewicz, Michał, and Johanna Ray Vollhardt. "Evil Transformations: Social-Psychological Processes Underlying Genocide and Mass Killing." Social psychology of social problems: The intergroup context (2012): 280, Macmillan International Higher Education.</ref>

That is, Icewhiz wrote "The self defense unit" (referring to one mentioned earlier in the paragraph) while Bilewicz and Vollhart's article says "the formerly anti-fascist local branch of the Polish Home Army" led by "the perceived need for self-defence". (The rest of the sentence matches the diff). So were the "self defense unit" and the local branch of the Polish Home Army the same thing? I don't know. If Mymolokoaccount says they are different, some explanation is needed. The underlined sentence in Bilewicz and Vollhart's article cites the sources

Głuchowski, P. & Kowalski, M. (2009). Odwet. Prawdziwa historia braci Bielskich [Revenge. The True Story of Bielski Brothers]. Warsaw, Poland: Agora.

and

Grossman, C. (1988). The Underground Army: fighters of the Bialystok Ghetto. New York: Holocaust Library.

which could help clarify what Bilewicz and Vollhart were referring to. The paragraph (further up) also cites the book

Tec, N. (1993). Defiance. The Bielski Partisans. New York: Oxford University Press.

and the movie of similar name (Defiance).

One could also possibly say Icewhiz's use of that citation took it out of context, since the cited article described a situation where there was so much food scarcity etc. that pretty much everyone was killing everyone else, as opposed to locals carrying out pogroms just for the heck of it. I'll leave that question to others.

I haven't attempted to check any of the follow-on sources but my library has the Grossman book so I could go look at it if someone requests it. The Głuchowski and Kowalski book ( OCLC  316544358) is available by ILL but it's written in Polish so I'm not qualified to check it. The Tec book is available in a variety of formats (my library has it as an audio book) which is consistent with the claim that it is widely read.

What I conclude is that this issue is complicated. I haven't looked much at any of the other evidence and I don't have any more to add. I now return you to your regularly scheduled bickering. 173.228.123.207 ( talk) 02:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply

If anyone cares, Icewhiz left a note on my user talk with some clarification of the above. [11] 173.228.123.207 ( talk) 06:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply

All submissions of evidence are generally limited to 500 words and 50 diffs, doubled for parties.  Any user is entitled, as always, to request permission to run longer than this evidence.

Effective immediately, for this arbitration case alone, a user may request permission to take an additional length allowance of 500 words and 50 diffs, doubled for parties, in order to deal with matters not addressed in their existing submission.

When requesting permission, parties should set out the issues they wish to address in their additional evidence.

After being granted permission, parties should clearly separate their evidence into "portions", each of 500 words and 50 diffs (or 1000 words and 100 diffs, for parties).  To separate, you may simply use {{ hr|3}}.

The committee does not expect any party to request multiple additional length allowances in order to rebut other users' evidence.

Presently, a number of parties have made submissions that are over length. If this applies to you, you are requested to organise the evidence by "issue" so as to allow evaluation of a request for additional length allowances. The clerks will begin refactoring or removing non-compliant submissions very soon.

Questions about this process may be asked below this section, but please use the provided format and adhere to the direction against threaded discussion. AGK  ■ 22:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Question by Icewhiz

Can I please have an additional section for dubious source use by Piotrus + Holocaust rescue (related one to eachother)? This was not in my original submission (I have a rough draft in place in my current submission - which is being refactored). I intend to present in this section NPOV issues (e.g. COATRACK use of ghetto articles) and dubious sources that are use in contravention of WP:QS. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Holocaust rescue/Piotrus dubious sources - absent 17 June. I was alarmed by Piotrus advancing Rydzyk's foundation as a source on Wikipedia - which prompted this - as did Piotrus's testimony and editing throughout this case which led to a bit of digging through Poeticbent's COATRACKs on ghetto articles. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Question by Volunteer Marek

Can I please have the extra extension?

Also is there any way we can have at least the weekend to finish up? Got work and travel during the week and I don't think it's an unreasonable request. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Question by François Robere

Asking for an extension per the above. François Robere ( talk) 17:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Question by MyMoloboaccount

Yes, I would like to ask for extension of evidence word limit. Do I understand that we have till end of 23 June to present evidence or till 23rd of June to do so? It isn't clear to me. I planned on finishing my evidence on Sunday 23rd, also perhaps clerks could inform the participants of evidence page on their talk pages rather in a bit obscure area?-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 10:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment by Piotrus

As far as I can tell my limit is 1,000 and I have 950 words so I assume I am ok. Please ping me if this is not the case. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Request by My very best wishes

Can I please have an extension by ~150 words (current size of my statement is ~650 words)? The behavior here is complex and therefore requires more space to explain. Thanks, My very best wishes ( talk) 23:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Just a reminder, the evidence phase is currently set to close in less than 24 hours. SQL ^{Query me!} 04:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC) reply

The evidence phase is now closed. – bradv 🍁 01:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply