User:FayssalF/Arbitration workshop pages management

New case workflow management
As some may already know, the Arbitration Committee is undergoing some changes in the way cases are handled. Cases will be processed by two or three Arbitrators depending on the case while Proposed Decisions' voting will be done by the whole Committee — not including, of course, inactive and/or recused Arbitrators.

It has been proven many times in the past that Workshop pages produce more negative results than positive ones. In other times, ArbCom case pages were left unsolicited, for one reason or another, by Arbitrators until the time the Proposed Decision was processed. There is no doubt that all that have helped little and made some cases take more time than it should have taken or that the decisions were not well-taken and remedies not well-tailored.

General
My idea, as well as that of other Arbitrators and Community members, is to act proactively in managing case workflow. That is to have the Arbitrator(s) as the guiding and leading party of the whole process. Clerks will be empowered to make sure the case is run smoothly and disruption inexistent. There are many advantages to be sought by taking that approach. The Arbitrator(s) could assess the situation better and look for opportunities which can be taken Just-In-Time instead of missing them and leaving the case take its flow under no control until everything gets missed.

Some of the opportunities could have material effects; the Arbitrator(s) may find out that the case may not need any sanctioning remedies because parties may probably agree with the Arbitrator(s)' opinion that other ways of resolving the case could bring better results. Other opportunities could have intrinsic effects making the case serving as a learning stage for the parties. Another very important gain is leveraging users' conduct and establishing a clean atmosphere and a better environment for a smooth case with the least disruption possible. In most cases, the pressure and the lack of organization in case pages lead parties to behave and act nervously, impatiently and inappropriately resulting in more complications and consequences which are unneeded. Parties and/or non-parties get impatient and tired day after day while waiting for the final decision as well and that could easily influence their behavior on-site. That is not a good and fair thing for sure. We are all contributors and do not deserve that. We didn't commit crimes after all to deserve that. Let's not forget after all the time saved and gained —a time which should be invested in other productive things for the project.

Basically, what I am suggesting here is a new procedure of running the case efficiently. There is nothing set in stone and the Arbitrator(s) or the Clerks, under their own discretion, may change the procedures if needed and parties and non-parties alike must respect Arbitrators and Clerks directions. The workshop page will serve as what it is set for; just Workshoping (no forumshopping) and no unnecessary details and discussions will be held here. In fact, most has been already said and documented by the parties through statements and evidence presentation. I am suggesting to change radically the way discussions are produced in case pages (mainly workshops). As suggested here by user:Future Perfect at Sunrise, interviews may be a very good idea.

Party statements
Prior to any questions, I'd like to give an opportunity to every single party of the case to express themselves in a 500 words statement. And, no. I'd not ask for a statement with evidences since the evidence page is set for that. I'd not read and comment on statements full of accusations. I'd probably ask the Clerk to remove it if necessary. What I'll be asking for is a statement where parties lay out what they believe they are having a case and what is the outcome sought.

Use of Workshop talk pages
I will then proceed to noting (See example), review notes and non-detailed Proposed Decisions made by non-parties (see below for more details about non-parties PD) at the talk page and prepare the Proposed Decision if there are no significant objections to noting by the parties. Following that, a Proposed Decision will be posted at the Workshop page for review by parties and non-parties who would use the talk page where concerns and/or significant objections about Proposed Decision —if any— will be addressed. Where there are no significant objections to proposals, they will be posted on the Proposed Decision page ready for voting by the Committee.

Non-parties
Non-parties' participation in general have usually brought many positive things than negative ones. However, in many cases, that was proven totally wrong. In many cases, non-parties uncontrolled participation has brought more damage to the case than any good. For this reason non-parties participation will be guided and directed by the Arbitrator(s) and the Clerks. Proposed Decisions by non-parties are always welcome; however, and in order to have fast track cases with the minimum of time wasting, non-parties will be asked to produce general points at this talk page. Non-parties will be able to mention the general points without needing to follow any format or template. The simple the better. More details on this will be posted this week-end.

Questions
The idea of questions is not a novelty. In many cases, Arbitrators used to ask involved parties questions which are related to evidences or others for clarifications. In some other cases, and due to privacy concerns, questions are sent and replied via e-mail.

Questions should never be inquisitional. Questions, in general, are set to help Arbitrators analyze the situation better. What is new in this process is that questions will have a form and will be devided into two separate rounds. The first round will involve general questions that will be asked to the parties. The second round will consist of detailed questions depending on the course of the case and the answers of the other party.

Arbitrator(s) may take notes during or after reception of answers. The notes will be posted just under the answers sub-section. Once all answers are responded, the Arbitrator(s) will summarize all notes and post them at the bottom of the page. The Arbitrator(s) may use some indicators such as and  to indicate to the parties that S/he is satisfied with the answer or not. In case more clarification is needed, the Arbitrator(s) may use the sign.

In practical terms, the Arbitrator(s) will look at the evidence and prepare a list (not very long actually but that depends on the case) of questions for parties to answer (less than 500 words per answer). The parties would also be able to ask the Arbitrator(s) to produce further pertinent questions to the other party if they believe the Arbitrator(s) missed any.

The number of questions may differ from one party to another. That should not be considered as an indication of anything apart from the simple explanation that the Arbitrator(s) may need more answers for their analysis. Parties are requested to answer the questions within 7 days.

Proposed Desicions by participants
Participants to the case use to post their Proposed Decisions at the Workshop main page. This method has had some advantages such as easy access and formality among others. However, Proposed Decisions by participants, especially when there are many, use to clutter the Workshop and making it hard to load —especially for people with slow connections. Other inconvenients include lengthy and unnecessary discussions which sometimes result in inappropriate behavior between participants. As we are trying to make the case work smoothly in a more organized manner, I'll ask participants who would propose desicions to start a subpage under their own user mainspace for that purpose. We will create sections in the Workshop main page where participants will link to their Proposed Decisions.

Also, many participants use to produce quasi-similar Proposed Decisions where the difference is minimal. I'd encourage similar Proposed Descisions to get merged into one. That is to say that two participant with quasi-similar PDs can merge their products into a single page (as the Committee does with the final Proposed Desicion). I'd like then participants to add briefly in a few lines (not exceeding 10 lines) a summary of their PDs just below the link to it. Once the case is closed, Proposed Desicions by participants can be posted to the Workshop page for convenienece and formalities purposes so their subpages can be deleted.

Clerks role
The main role of the Clerks is to assist the Committee with procedural aspects of its work including enforcing Arbitrator(s) guidelines on statements and comments. This gives the Clerks and empowers them to mantain order in case pages. The parties and non-parties are expected to respect Clerks' decisions and action unless they believe there is some sort of abuse in which case, they should be noted at the talk page of the Arbitrator(s) handling the case. Workshops and other case pages should not be used to report or discuss Clerks' actions. Reporting Clerks's actions during case proceeding to ANI or other Wikipedia venues before contacting the Arbitrator(s) would be inappropriate. That should be observed at all times and repeated inappropriate actions by the parties or non-parties may result in a restriction to use the case pages where troubles are noted.

Deadline
This is a new approach we'll be taking. After a few days from starting the process formally, the Arbitrator(s) will ask the parties to estimate a deadline for the case closure. After a consensus is reached, the Clerks will make an announcement to the rest of the Committee and the Community via proper channels. The reason for this is to make everyone responsible for the process. It will also be taken as an incentive for the parties to work harder and avoid disruption which would delay the case process to no set date. Deadlines are not set in stone and can be updated depending on the course and the flow of the case. However, parties and non-parties are urged to do their best to respect them. I am working on the details and I am planning to announce them this week-end.

Workshop pages formatting
Because of the new introduced procedures and the points addressed above, the Workshop page and its related talk page will undergo some changes for that purpose. The clerks and Arbitrators are working on the new pages' layout which will be ready before April 14, 2009.

Users will be requested to move their Proposed Decisions to their mainspace as explained above before that date and wait for the Clerks instructions.

Conduct of all of us
I am placing this section here so that it'd make more sense

Everyone participating in the case pages is bound by the Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

The purpose of these pages is to fix long-term issues. This is neither ANI nor any other place in the project since this deals with the last step of the dispute resolution process and not an extension of the dispute. Conduct between participants should follow the Wikipedia prescribed policies and guidelines. There will be no place for personal attacks and incivility; as an example, here 'b*l**h*t' is counted as a violation of the civility policy while 'x is stupid' is counted as a violation of no personal attacks policy (no - 'x is lazy' is not a personal attack). There's a reason for that; if participants keep attacking and being uncivil to eachother they would risk stricter remedies. So conduct is important to participants because bad behavior would affect the final decision since the Committee would consider that the problem of behaviour is still unresolved and constitues the main problem and therefore should be remedied with the adequate measures. After the first and last warning, any participant who violates the policy again will be blocked or restricted up to a period of 24h.

IPs are allowed to participate as long as they are bringing positive points. Disruption by IPs is not allowed and blocks may be issuedon the spot. In case of suspicion of sockpuppetry, I'll ask the Clerks to file a sockpuppet investigation.

I need to make clear that this not set to scare participants as much as it is set to protect participants against eachother and to help them avoid harsh or negative remedies.