Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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.

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)

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 Wikipedia 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. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)