Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Workshop and analysis phase

Arbitration​Committee

This is part of a series of guides for parties to an Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) case. The guides are:

Introduction to ArbCom for parties	The case request	Introduction to cases	Evidence phase	Workshop and analysis phase	Proposed decision	Final decision and afterwards

Workshop

The Workshop allows parties, the community, and Arbitrators to analyze the evidence, offer suggestions about possible final decision proposals, and receive feedback. Parties and editors should keep a few things in mind when writing workshop proposals.

1. Be aware of the kinds of proposals that have been offered in prior similar cases. For example: the Arbitration committee does not make content rulings, so a proposal that "The article Fooberries will be restored to my version of 12 August 2023" is a complete non-starter.
2. Principles highlight the key applicable provisions of policy, procedure, or community practice and, where appropriate, provide the Committee's interpretation of such provisions in the context of the dispute. Proposed principles should be grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Don't offer proposals like "Topical experts should be given special deference" or "Editors do not need to cite sources when writing about themselves." Suggesting a principle from a past case can be particularly effective, as arbitrators often try to re-use principles rather than write new ones.
3. Proposed findings of fact (FoF) should be supported by evidence on the /Evidence page. You are expected to link to the applicable sections of the /Evidence page, and to include a few of the best diffs, to illustrate each aspect of the finding of fact.
4. Proposed remedies should be supported by the findings of fact. A proposal to ban User:Example from editing requires substantial evidence that User:Example has violated community editing norms. Do not submit a proposed remedy, unless you can also point to a proposed finding of fact, either from yourself or another editor, that supports it.

Failure to link a finding of fact to evidence and/or a remedy to a finding of fact is a common mistake. This mistake will mean that arbitrators normally do not give much consideration to the proposal, and can, in some cases, mean the proposal is removed completely. It also does not reflect well on the person who proposed it.

Although each workshop proposal includes space for comments by the Arbitrators, parties, and others, the workshop is not a vote, nor is it a debate. Casting a "vote" of support for your favorite proposals is less informative than a brief comment of why you think it is a good proposal, while getting into an argument with another party in the case is less useful to the Arbitrators than a concise explanation of why you agree or disagree with a proposal.

Not every case will have a workshop phase. In some cases, there may be additional restrictions placed on the workshop as well (such as no proposing remedies). Occasionally, arbitrators may put up their own workshop proposals for feedback and giving feedback about those proposals can be particularly helpful.

Analysis

This is intended to allow editors to do detailed explanations of evidence that has been submitted. For instance, if an editor has submitted a single diff that is part of a much longer conversation it can be useful to explain how it fits in to the larger context of the conversation. All analysis should directly mention specific evidence that is being analyzed. While there are normally not word limits for analysis, shorter well crafted analysis is normally more effective than longer more comprehensive analysis. While there is also space for discussion of analysis, prolonged debates about analysis are often less helpful than having contrasting well stated positions and letting the arbitrators judge how much they agree with each.

Expectations of behavior during Arbitration proceedings

The behavior, good and bad, of parties during a case is carefully considered by Arbitrators when making their final decision.

Mooning the jury

Main page: Wikipedia:Don't moon the jury

Parties should be on their best behavior while adding evidence or making comments on arbitration pages. While this should be obvious, a surprising number of participants, having been accused of aggressive, uncivil or point of view editing, continue this behavior to the case itself. Comments made by the parties during the Arbitration case may be taken into account by the Committee in setting any remedies, and continued evidence of disruptive behavior is often seen as evidence that milder remedies (warnings or probation) will not have the desired effect, leading to topic or site bans. Remember that if you are on trial for assault, it is generally not a good idea to start punching witnesses in open court.

Rhetoric and blustering

Clear and persuasive presentation of evidence will almost always be more effective than any debates or arguments. Almost nothing useful ever comes out of arguments among parties on the workshop page, the evidence page, or the talk pages, and the longer the arguments get, the lower the chance of anything being noticed or valued by the arbitrators. If you must engage in discussion, short and simple questions to arbitrators are probably the most effective method.

Mistakes to avoid

ArbCom is typically pro-Wikipedia, generally considers that the Wikipedia method works, that Wikipedia is on the whole a successful project, and that admins are generally trustworthy. They explicitly choose any outcome that results in Wikipedia working better.

Therefore, arguments opposing Wikipedia's basic principles, suggesting a massive cabal of rogue admins, or holding the process to be an end in itself will not work.

Arguing about flaws in the arbitration process is usually a waste of time and will make arbitrators look dimly upon you.

Pettifoggery is likely to create prejudice against your cause, as a person who can win on the merits of their case will probably not resort to wikilawyering.

Glossary

Below is a list of words used during ArbCom cases which have a specific meaning or intent that might not be obvious to the average reader. It is not intended to be a complete list of words used.

Admonish

The most severe reprimand of the remind, warn, admonish triplet. Used when ArbCom wishes to criticize and firmly caution someone against repeating certain behavior/actions.

Assume

To take over responsibility (Used interchangeably with take over)

Contentious topic

Specially designated topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project. Administrators are allowed to impose editing restrictions on editors who do not follow project expectations within contentious topics. Administrators are also allowed to set special rules on pages within a contentious topic to prevent inappropriate editing. See the contentious topic page for a full explanation.

Drafting arbs

See Overview of Cases

Implementation notes

A table that summarizes the voting on a proposed decision, allowing arbitrators, clerks, and editors to see which proposals are passing, which are failing, and how many more votes are needed for a proposal to pass if there is no majority.

Net four

The number of votes to support or accept (or oppose or decline) is at least four greater than the number of votes to oppose or decline (or support or accept). For example if there are 2 declines, there must be at least 6 accepts for there to be net four.

Party

An editor who the Arbitration Committee has identified as having an important role in the dispute the committee is examining. A party may or may not be sanctioned, while non-parties are not eligible to be sanctioned.

Remind

1)The least severe reprimand of the remind, warn, admonish triplet. Used when ArbCom wishes an editor to not repeat certain behavior/actions.

2) Also is the most frequently used of the three words when addressing a group (e.g. the community or administrators). When addressing a group it is often be used to bring an option to that group's attention rather than as a reprimand (e.g. administrators are reminded that partial blocks may be used).

Take over

To assume responsibility (Used interchangeably with assume)

Warn

The middle reprimand option of the remind, warn, admonish triplet. Used when ArbCom wants to caution an editor to not repeat certain behavior/actions.