Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

Submitting evidence

• Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.
• You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.
• Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.

Word and diff limits

• The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.
• If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page.
• Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Supporting assertions with evidence

• Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
• Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

Rebuttals

• The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page.
• Analysis of evidence should occur on the /Workshop page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.

Expected standards of behavior

• 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 incivil or engaging in personal attacks, 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).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

• Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
• Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
• Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
• Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Evidence presented by My very best wishes

WP:Battle by Icewhiz

Icewhiz recently made this series of edits [1],[2],[3],[4],[5], [6][7],[8],[9],[10]. This looks like a systematic removal of sourced information about political repression of Polish population by the Polish communist regime and Soviet NKVD. None of the content Icewhiz removed was even remotely antisemitic, except maybe only this (note edit summary). However, instead of simply removing "Jewish" (which would be reasonable), Icewhiz removes info that the person was involved in "in Stalinist regime show trials of the 1950s" and implicated in the arrests and executions. She is known as a state prosecutor during the Kangaroo courts. That info was well sourced on the page. With regard to several last removals, Icewhiz tells it was "just" an ethnic cleansing of Polish population, rather than genocide (discussion). Not according to many academic RS [11], [12]. No wonder, these edits by Icewhiz led to numerous reverts (mostly per WP:BRD) and disputes on these pages.

Why Icewhiz is doing this? To answer this question, one should look at the previous history of relations between Icewhiz and the same Polish users. There were several contentious WP:AE discussions, with some participants, like Poeticbent, loosing their temper and receiving their topic bans for cursing Icewhiz. I also noticed that Icewhiz said this (“a redline conduct issue”) meaning this edit by VM. What? It was written: "a Polish officer ... of the Polish People's Republic." VM removed one of the "Polish". That's fine. But somehow Icewhiz perceived this edit as "a redline conduct issue" because Morel "happened to be Jewish". This is a blatant misinterpretation by Icewhiz.

Given that, I believe this series of edits by Icewhiz does not really reflects his POV (an anti-Polish or whatever), but it was rather an elaborate game to provoke Polish users who will follow his edits, so he can cry wolf (aka wikistalking and tag-teaming) [13] when it comes to submitting his WP:AE report or the arbitration request. No, as long as contributors work to improve content, I think this is not tag-teaming and wikistalking, but should be viewed as a productive collaboration. My very best wishes (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Icewhiz

Placeholder. Expect to submit soon.Icewhiz (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.