User:Guerillero/Guide to Arbitration

I suggest you follow the blazes I set up here, but you are free to chart your own course through an arbitration case

From my decade of experience being a party, outside participant, writing the Signpost Arbitration Report, clerking, and sitting on the committee, I have some thoughts that may prove useful for getting the most out of an ArbCom case. I think they are good, but they are worth what you paid for them.

The official Guide to Arbitration was written mostly by FT2 and AGK in 2008, revised in 2010 by Kaisershatner and then revised again by AGK and Roger Davies in 2012. It is great document for people who want to understand how the committee works, but is unhelpful for first-time parties. This unofficial guide is my attempt to quickly demystify an opaque process for people who have a sudden need to know what the committee is looking for.

General

Sometimes we pretend that ArbCom is a court. It is best to disabuse yourself of that notion when you become a party in a case

1. Your conduct during the case is paramount. One of the easiest ways to get shown the door by the committee is by being a jackass during the case. This comes in several forms:
   • Do not fight with or attack the other parties. I do not care how frustrated you are with anyone else. Doing this will paint you as the problem party no matter what the evidence looks like. If you are already in jeopardy of being sanctioned, this will make them a sure thing and more severe. It is for the best that you interact with the other parties as infrequently and as civilly as possible.
   • Do not continue the behavior that brought you to ArbCom. Much like getting into fistfights with the other parties, the committee tends to look dimly upon such behavior. My suggestion is that you stop editing the topic area entirely. If you are an admin, do not use your tools. Any misstep will be spotted and used as evidence against you.
   • The arbitrators are who is going to decide your fate on the project. If one of them is a prat to you, the time to fix that issue is in December when the yearly election rolls around, not during your case. No matter how good it will feel in the moment, lashing out at one or more members of the committee will only cause you to get drummed out of the project.
   • Do not refuse to take part. The committee will move forward with a case without you and boycotting the case often leads to increased sanctions.
2. The committee is a dozen people, not a group. Each person is going to have different biases and areas of focus. They are not a monolithic cabal of lizard people out to get you.
3. The committee is not a court and justice has nothing to do with what ArbCom does. It attempts to solves disputes and nothing more. You have no rights; there is no due process. Relying on Textualism will result in harsher sanctions.
4. While the position of a drafting arbitrator is officially only for workload balancing, in practice, they are primus inter pares for the case and given a large amount of deference by the rest of the committee on questions of case management.
5. Only expect the drafting arbitrator(s) and one or two other committee members to closely follow the case and carefully read the evidence. The rest will skim the evidence, work from broad impressions, and largely play follow the leader with the drafters. In the first case after the election or in rare high-drama cases, your submissions have a higher chance of being analyzed by a majority of the committee.
6. The clerks are the worker bees that make ArbCom function. Without them, the committee's work would grind to a halt.
7. "Repetition Legitimizes." If you have an important point, say it in the request for arbitration. After the case is accepted, even if you have no additional diffs, post about it in the evidence. When the workshop opens up, post a findings of fact about it.
8. Cases will involve people examining your past conduct, often in a critical way. If you disagree with such statements, rebut them calmly, recognizing that while they may be hurtful they are not per se personal attacks.

Evidence

1. You have limited space and attention. Parties receive only 1000 words and 100 diffs; everyone else gets 500 words and 50 diffs. We want to believe that the arbitrators will read everything and closely examine each diff. In reality, the likelihood that diff 105 will be closely examined is much less than diff 1. So, place your best evidence first.
2. Rebuttals are unhelpful as evidence. Much like how a gish gallop works, it is much easier to make accusations than it is to disprove them. You have a limited number of words and diffs. Do not waste them trying to disprove accusations unless it can be done thoroughly with a minimal use of resources. Instead, use the Analysis of evidence section in the workshop where there is not a word cap.
3. Nobody cares that you can write a wall of text or a cogent argument. It will be ignored. Instead, submit diffs of direct misconduct with the minimal amount of explanation to show what the issue is. A good three words and three diffs are more potent than a 500 word essay.
4. Arbitrators do not understand the background of your case. Write any explanation as if you are talking to a complete outsider about it.

Workshop

Avoid turning the workshop into this

1. The workshop is a high risk-high reward forum. Take part at your own risk. Oftentimes it is a mud pit to keep the parties attacking each other in a place away from the work of building an encyclopedia. However, a well-written proposal can influence how the arbitrators see your case.
2. Read past cases. Your proposals should look and sound like they were proposed by arbcom. Parties frequently post useless things that double as veiled attacks on others.
3. Principles are often boilerplate. Gather the principles from the cases you reviewed that seem to work with your case and reuse them. That is what the arbitrators are doing in their draft on arbwiki. When you do this, remember to post the case they came from. Showing that past arbitrators thought a principle was a good idea increases the likelyhood that they get used.
4. Suggest direct findings of fact. Think of "foo edit warred" and follow it with diffs of them edit warring or a link to the evidece section with diffs. The more arcane you get, the less helpful it is.
5. Include evidence for the findings of fact. Without evidence, they are personal attacks and will be removed by a clerk.
6. Suggest meaningful remedies. From your perusal of past cases, you will get an idea of what the committee does and does not do. Warnings, interaction bans, topic bans, site bans, and discretionary sanctions are all common.
7. Don't get over your skis. Proposing a site ban for minor misconduct is a bad look.

Proposed Decision

1. You can not bargain your way out of sanctions. Nothing you say or do will cause the committee to give you lesser sanctions based on begging or attempts at bargaining. Your bed has been made at this point. However, mooning the jury will result in harsher sanctions.
2. Nobody knows the difference between a reminder, warning, and an admonishment. They all pretty much mean that the next time a user is back at arbcom within the decade, they are facing a ban of some kind. It is not a useful use of time to argue with the arbitrators to choose another one of these three words.
3. Begging the arbitrators to site ban another party for minor misconduct is often seen as battleground behavior and may result in harsher sanctions.

After the case

1. Arbitration Enforcement admins do not take kindly to testing the boundaries of restrictions. If you think you might not be allowed to do something, you are not.
2. The committee can overturn a case, but in practice, they are not going to. If you submit a Clarification and Amendment Request based on a "miscarriage of justice", "being railroaded", or something similar it will be rejected.