Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/FAQ
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)
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
Frequently asked questions
Evidence
Why are there 2 phases of evidence and how do they each work?
The first phase is intended to be the main phase for evidence, as in a typical case. The committee expects a large amount of evidence and so has added time for arbitrators and editors to work through the evidence following the end of the first phase. 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.
Can I submit evidence privately?
The expectation is that evidence will be submitted publicly. If there is evidence about a named party that is with-in the scope of the case but would out that editor, it may be submitted via email and the committee will decide whether or not to accept it as evidence.
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. Further analysis and context, including rebuttals for the paper's conclusions, is also permissible. Of the concerns expressed in the paper, the Arbitration Committee will only be considering the conduct allegations. Any content decisions should be made through the normal editing process, including article talk page discussion, as the Arbitration Committee does not rule on content.
What is this case about? Is this case just about the paper? What about other evidence?
This case is not about the paper; 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. The paper can be used as evidence, but other evidence about the conduct of named parties in this topic area is encouraged.
"Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust" includes incidents which happened many years ago. Is the committee really going to examine things that are so old?
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.
Can I get additional words or diffs?
You may request extensions on the Evidence talk page. Note: any evidence summarized and collapsed by an arbitrator or clerk does not count against any word or diff limits.
Anything else I should think about when submitting evidence?
Interested editors are encouraged to submit evidence, even in chunks, sooner in the process rather than trying ot get a "complete" submission later. Because of the summary style this will allow for others to build on the work and ensure that you don't work on something that duplicates work that someone else does.
If I am a named party, will my conduct in the case be considered as evidence?
Yes.
Summary
Why is ArbCom using a summary page?
A summary page, sometimes known as "DocumentMode", is a way to provide an executive summary of the relevant facts and information presented at the evidence phase. This allows for a more concise list of evidence without the bloat of repetition and editorialising. It also removes the necessity of indicating who provided a particular piece of evidence, which on the whole is largely irrelevant information when compared to the evidence itself. Additionally, for a contentious topic such as this one it also keeps the attention focused more on the topic itself and less on other editors.
In other words, it helps the Arbitration Committee indicate the main points of disagreement and agreement, what issues were under-discussed but could be revisited during future evidence phases, and the top-line results.
How will the summary page work?
During the Evidence phase, participants in the case will present evidence in the usual manner at the /Evidence page, making sure to keep within the required length limits. For example:
- An editor posts evidence in their own section of with an assertion "User:Alice edit warred at Foo [1][2][3][4]"
- An arbitrator or clerk neutrally summarizes the assertion and evidence on the /Summary page, focusing on objective actions and avoiding evaluative terms where possible. Continuing the above example, it could be summarised as "Alice made 4 reverts over X time period to Foo [1-4]".
- Alice contests the assertion or wants to add context, so they show up and say "User:Bob is lying! I wasn't edit warring, those were exempt under the BLP policy and ECP restriction"
- Arbitrators or clerks modify the summary to incorporate subsequent discussion. So taking Alice's response, the summary is modified to say "Alice made 4 reverts over X time period on Foo [1-4]. One edit [2] was to a non-ECP account and enforced the ECP restriction. The others were to contentious material relating to living people and might have been to enforce the BLP policy".
- Further discussion, clarification, or corrections to that particular point of evidence would be updated as necessary
Following the summary of the evidence (both initial and any follow-up) the original /Evidence section will be hatted, both to indicate that it has been incorporated into the summary document but also to allow for more evidence to be provided by the original editor(s).
Where can I appeal a summary?
You can appeal on the Evidence Talk page. When appealing you are strongly encouraged to provide an alternative summary wording. If instead you wish to rebut the evidence you should write your own evidence submission.
Why hasn't my evidence been summarized?
It could be as simple as no arbitrator or clerk has gotten around to it. Evidence is not necessarily summarized in order (chronological or page). However, it could also be intentionally left there. Examples why Arbitrators and clerks would chose not to summarize evidence include failing to provide adequate proof of what is being asserted (not supporting with diffs) or for being out of scope (e.g. being a content rather than conduct issue).
Can I edit evidence I submitted which hasn't been summarized?
Normally this will be fine, though there are times where this would not be allowed (e.g. if another editor has already provided rebuttal evidence, the evidence will likely not be allowed to be removed completely).
Can I edit evidence I submitted which has been summarized and collapsed?
No. If there is a compelling reason to do so you can ask for permission on the Evidence talk page.
Timeline and other structure questions
Can I request an additional party be added to the case
Yes. For the first week of the case, ending 21 March, you may submit evidence showing misconduct, supported by diffs, by editors other than those named as parties. The drafting arbitrators will then make a decision about whether or not to add those editors.
What is the timeline for the case?
- Evidence Phase 1 (3 weeks)
- Pause to review evidence (1 week)
- Evidence Phase 2 (2 weeks) concurrently with Analysis Phase
- Analysis Phase (2 weeks) concurrently with Evidence Phase 2
- Drafting (2 weeks)
- Proposed decision posted
The drafting Arbitrators (and the Committee as a whole) also have discretion to adjust the timeline as needed during the case.
I am listed as a party. Does this mean that the Arbitration Committee thinks I have done things wrong?
No. It means that the Committee thinks that you were a relevant participant in the topic area.