Revision as of 22:52, 18 August 2011 editElen of the Roads (talk | contribs)16,638 edits →Workshop before evidence?: generic advice← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:04, 18 August 2011 edit undoElen of the Roads (talk | contribs)16,638 edits →Workshop before evidence?: more general examplesNext edit → | ||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Think of it either like telling a story - Joe did this (diff) then Nancy reverted him (diff) then Tom called Joe a bluebottle (diff). Or like a list of offenses - Joe has violated BLP (diff)(diff), Nancy has edit warred (diff)(diff), Tom has been incivil (diff). Different Arbs prefer different methods, but they need to have evidence as to why you can't reach an agreement among yourselves - who or what is preventing it. In general, the principles are based on previous principles or Misplaced Pages policy (Arbcom doesn't set policy in these findings), the findings of fact are based on the evidence presented, and the remedies are what Arbcom thinks will stop the specific problem happening again. | Think of it either like telling a story - Joe did this (diff) then Nancy reverted him (diff) then Tom called Joe a bluebottle (diff). Or like a list of offenses - Joe has violated BLP (diff)(diff), Nancy has edit warred (diff)(diff), Tom has been incivil (diff). Different Arbs prefer different methods, but they need to have evidence as to why you can't reach an agreement among yourselves - who or what is preventing it. In general, the principles are based on previous principles or Misplaced Pages policy (Arbcom doesn't set policy in these findings), the findings of fact are based on the evidence presented, and the remedies are what Arbcom thinks will stop the specific problem happening again. | ||
A useful thing that the parties can do is help Arbcom with the part of the finding of fact usually termed "Scope of the dispute" or "focus of the dispute", which is basically what it is that the argument is all about, that is causing people to behave badly. Getting this right forms the basis of the rest of the decisions. Read up on a few cases from this year to get more of a feel for it. |
A useful thing that the parties can do is help Arbcom with the part of the finding of fact usually termed "Scope of the dispute" or "focus of the dispute", which is basically what it is that the argument is all about, that is causing people to behave badly. Getting this right forms the basis of the rest of the decisions. Read up on a few cases from this year to get more of a feel for it. | ||
So in the example dispute above, you might get | |||
Principles | |||
* contentious material about living persons must be supported by reliable sources. Material which violates this may be removed.(from ] | |||
* Editors should discuss matters calmly and refrain from personal attacks | |||
Findings of Fact | |||
* the focus of the dispute is the article ], specifically the question of whether Foo had an affair with his researcher, Molly Minge, in 2005. | |||
* User Joe repeatedly added this information to the article without a source.(diff)(diff) | |||
* User Nancy reverted the addition 25 times in 2 hours - reversion of BLP violations is exempt from 3RR. | |||
* User Tom engaged in personal attacks (diff)(diff) | |||
Remedies | |||
* User Joe is topic banned from ] for one year | |||
* User Tom is admonished for incivility. | |||
] (]) 22:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:04, 18 August 2011
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
---|
Open proceedings |
Active sanctions |
Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
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 or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Workshop before evidence?
I'm new to arbitration...is it normal to start Workshopping before Evidence is presented? Or is this not a sequential process (that is, are they supposed to be done simultaneously)? It doesn't matter to me, but I guess I'm just confused about where to proceed first. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if there's a procedure. People normally start with the evidence stage. John Smith's (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- In my experience as an Arbitration Committee clerk, workshop proposals are expexted to be evidence-based, backed up by diffs. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, can you list the specific steps of doing this in point form then? I simply followed Tenmei's example since he had some prior experiences with ArbCom. I would've provided evidence as well, but I don't feel like doing the digging now and I can see other parties are not very enthusiastic about this either (seeing how the evidence page is empty except for Penwhale's non-evidence materials. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- In my experience as an Arbitration Committee clerk, workshop proposals are expexted to be evidence-based, backed up by diffs. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Think of it either like telling a story - Joe did this (diff) then Nancy reverted him (diff) then Tom called Joe a bluebottle (diff). Or like a list of offenses - Joe has violated BLP (diff)(diff), Nancy has edit warred (diff)(diff), Tom has been incivil (diff). Different Arbs prefer different methods, but they need to have evidence as to why you can't reach an agreement among yourselves - who or what is preventing it. In general, the principles are based on previous principles or Misplaced Pages policy (Arbcom doesn't set policy in these findings), the findings of fact are based on the evidence presented, and the remedies are what Arbcom thinks will stop the specific problem happening again.
A useful thing that the parties can do is help Arbcom with the part of the finding of fact usually termed "Scope of the dispute" or "focus of the dispute", which is basically what it is that the argument is all about, that is causing people to behave badly. Getting this right forms the basis of the rest of the decisions. Read up on a few cases from this year to get more of a feel for it.
So in the example dispute above, you might get Principles
- contentious material about living persons must be supported by reliable sources. Material which violates this may be removed.(from WP:BLP
- Editors should discuss matters calmly and refrain from personal attacks
Findings of Fact
- the focus of the dispute is the article A J Foo, specifically the question of whether Foo had an affair with his researcher, Molly Minge, in 2005.
- User Joe repeatedly added this information to the article without a source.(diff)(diff)
- User Nancy reverted the addition 25 times in 2 hours - reversion of BLP violations is exempt from 3RR.
- User Tom engaged in personal attacks (diff)(diff)
Remedies
- User Joe is topic banned from A J Foo for one year
- User Tom is admonished for incivility.