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 Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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" [2] 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]

I also support all suggestions by Piotrus just above simply because I think they are reasonable. Is that my opinion a "tag teaming"? My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz. No, I did not even read Tripod blog and I never endorsed using it. I voted this way in a community discussion because the removed information was mostly correct to my knowledge (I admit though I am not an expert). Germany did use non-German auxiliaries to occupy Poland, and the text in question mentioned well known Azeri SS Volunteer Formations. I agree (and agreed) that the text must be sourced better. My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then, 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]

• My Evidence section will be a little over 600 words, and I ask to allow it. I can not convey my message using less words. My very best wishes (talk) 07:31, 13 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]