Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Analysis

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)

When is evidence evidence and when is it analysis?

I am a bit confused with regards to some sections here repeating evidence verbatim in 100%. For Adoring_nanny_analysis and The_Forgotten_Holocaust, it appears that the evidence was summarized but then also copied, in its entirety, to the "Analysis". This is not the case with two other sections on this page (Analysis_of_evidence_provided_by_Ealdgyth_and_Wugapodes_comments, Analysis_of_Evidence_presented_by_Gitz). This is a bit confusing. What is the point of "duplicating" the entirety of hatted evidence in some Analysis instead of just linking to it? And what is the point of summarizing evidence, if the summarized evidence is given "low visibility" by just being linked to, but the original evidence is prominently featured in two places? I understand the format of this ArbCom is a bit experimental, so perhaps we could use some guidance here. Personally I think this page would be more clear (less cluttered) if we did not duplicate (copypaste) content of evidence page here, linking to sections should be more elegant. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus Gitz's evidence hadn't been summarized when VM started that analysis. When I actually summarized it I copied over Gitz's writing. As for why Ealdgyth's (and your) evidence didn't get copied is that more straightforward factual evidence (which truth be told is hugely appreciated) can just be summarized without losing context/nuance. It can, of course, still be analyzed (including by the original poster). I appreciate your feedback on the structure and how it might improve. I know I will think on it. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

using the correct section

@ToBeFree sorry for the mistake [1]. So I understand that my replies should be placed not under the comment I'm replying to but in the subsection "Comment by others" - correct? And should I refactor my replies to VM by moving them in that section or is it best to leave things as they are? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Gitz6666, no worries. That's correct, but others will do the refactoring – just the new ones should definitely be written into the "Comments by others" section. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Extension?

I understand the analysis phase has ended, but I'm going through the arbs' questions and there are some things I could add. Also, I'm not quite sure what I was supposed to reply to, once GCB/Jacurek's comments have been stricken out. Is an extension/reopening being considered? François Robere (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No extension or reopening is being considered. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

That is disconcerting. Due to the timing of this case I hadn't had time to submit all of my evidence, and nearly none to participate in the analysis or respond to GCB/Jacurek and VM's accusation, and I would loath to see the pointy end of ArbCom's stick based on evidence from only these two. Can you give an indication as to where the committee is headed in terms of a decision? François Robere (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

If all things go according to plan, our proposed decision will be posted on 11 May. Primefac (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Will there be a workshop page for the decision

? Buffs (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Allow me to respond in kind: ??? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Buffs I have deleted the page you created as pages in Arbitration Space in general, and especially pages as part of a case, should only be created by Arbitrators or Arbitration clerks. The decision was made not to have a workshop for this case. You can see more discussion about that here. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

No objection whatsoever. In fact, thank you! I had no intention of creating anything I shouldn't have. It was only an attempt to follow the directions (still) listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Proposed decision

"Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion."

If you don't want such a page or such suggestions, please make the necessary adjustments the directions you've posted so they don't conflict with what you actually want/mandate. Buffs (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Buffs (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

That language was part of sections for "Proposed motions" and "Proposed temporary injunctions" and the suggestions were for one of those two things. While I have removed those sections because we don't normally do those at this stage (though normally we remove them when we actually post the proposed decision), are you requesting one of those? If so we can certainly entertain it. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I think crowdsourcing the proposed motions isn't entirely a bad idea. When you go to court before the judge/jury imposes a sentence, they hear from the plaintiff and the defendant about what they want. The remedies proposed might be more/less than ArbCom is willing to accept, but I see no reason that anyone whose actions are being assessed shouldn't have a chance to say "I think <solution x> is a good proposal for my actions" or "anything less than <solution y> for the actions of <another> is inappropriately light". They may come up with a novel idea or structure that could be useful at further ArbCom cases even if it isn't useful here. The same goes for findings of fact, remedies or principles.

Your call. Feel free to accept/decline the suggestion/idea at your discretion. Buffs (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I think <solution x> is a good proposal for my actions" or "anything less than <solution y> for the actions of <another> is inappropriately light is something that can also be done (as it has been since I was sat as an arb) on the talk page of the PD. Izno (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Which would make sense, but that page is currently locked. Buffs (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

So I think part of the confusion is around the specific terminology of ArbCom. A motion and an injunction are specific things. Instead what you're talking about Buffs are parts of the proposed decision (specifically remedies). The conversation I pointed you to explained the thinking there. And as Izno points out specific feedback can be and is offered on the PD talk page (and sometimes even alternative wording that is incorporated). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

page is locked for editing Buffs (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

No PD has been posted yet, so what could there be to comment on? :) Izno (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It would seem to me that proposals for sanctions/findings/etc would be warranted before ArbCom comes down with their conclusions... It's like waiting until a judge's ruling and then asking for motions about what they should consider/what the relevant parties think is appropriate. Seems like putting the cart before the horse...but I'm just a layperson... Buffs (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Then what you want is a workshop, which we have already said we will not be having. Izno (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Then why tell me to post ideas in a) a place that no one can and b) something we aren't doing? This whole thing stemmed from boilerplate directions not being taken down by the Arbs/Clerks. No biggee, people make mistakes. But then an idea is placed on this page and unfollowable directions are given. We're going in circles here/this is pointless.

To paraphrase this most recent discussion:

• I think crowdsourcing the proposed motions isn't entirely a bad idea...before we propose a decision - Buffs
• That can be done on the talk page of the PD - Izno
• The talk page is locked - Buffs
• "No PD has been posted yet, so what could there be to comment on?" - Izno
• What I said before. - Buffs
• Then what you want is a workshop, which we have already said we will not be having - Izno

Next time, just say we're going to discuss and post the proposed decision without any community input and then the masses can say what they want. Again, this sounds like putting the cart before the horse, but it's your prerogative. Do what y'all want. I'm done with this goat rope. Buffs (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

we're going to discuss and post the proposed decision without any community input is precisely what we're not having a workshop means, the latter of which was in Barkeep's first response to your question mark. I'm sorry if you think that's unfair, or if you were confused when he said that, but that is what it means. Izno (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Not worth a reply. Buffs (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)