Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Workshop

Note
Please note that I won't be available for the next few days (at least until Tuesday) due to personal (religious) reasons. Thanks, — A itias //  discussion  22:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Advice for the workshop
Next we will be moving to the workshop page. This is an opportunity for editors to make suggestions to the arbitrators about the final decision of the case. Don't feel bad if the arbitrators do not use your exact idea, they rarely copy a finding from the Workshop directly to the Proposed decision.

There are four parts of the workshop; Principles, Findings of fact, Remedies, and Enforcement.

Principles
Principles are broad summaries about the way in which Wikipedia operates. They are not based on the specific facts of the case, but are instead the relevant principles, which the arbitrators will use to interpret the facts of the case. There are several places that can help in framing workshop principles, such as these:

The following can provide additional support in writing workshop principles:

Findings of fact
Findings of fact are descriptions of things that have occurred, and are based on the evidence presented on the /Evidence page. Findings do not need to link to a particular section of supporting evidence, but if they are not supported by any evidence they are given little weight. Remember that these are facts about the case at hand, so if a finding has no evidence to support it, then it probably is not appropriate to the case. Also, the Committee is unlikely to find one side right and the other side wrong. Findings should be framed in an detached and neutral manner. Findings that are evenly balanced tend to be looked upon more favorably than findings placing all the blame on one party.

Remedies
Remedies are the synthesis of the principles and the findings of fact. Situations are brought to the Committee because the community cannot resolve them. Remedies are the means by which the Committee resolves the situation. Remedies can include warnings, restrictions, sanctions, mentorships, or bannings. They can be applied to a single individual, a specific list of parties, a group of individuals, an article, or a group of articles. They can be temporary or permanent. Also, they will dictate how they are to be enforced at the conclusion of the case, either by the Committee itself, or by administrators monitoring enforcement requests.

Enforcement
Generally the enforcement section contains very little information. Most remedies are clear and do not require additional details. However, there are occasions when the Committee wishes to dictate enforcement guidelines very specifically. For instance, the a particular administrator may not be permitted to enforce a particular remedy, or any enforcement under the terms of the case must be noted in a particular location.

Workshop decorum
In the course of the workshop the arbitrators will comment on proposals. It is important to remember they are commenting as individuals and that the Committee has not decided anything yet. However, if it is clear that a particular line of proposals will not be considered by the Committee, it is generally considered bad form to continue to suggest proposals in the same line of thinking. Also, civility and no personal attacks still apply on the workshop pages and will be enforced. Administrators, clerks, or arbitrators should not attempt to enforce policies for matters that occur on cases they are involved in, rather they should bring it to the attention of an uninvolved clerk or arbitrator. The arbitrators are not concerned with what the parties think of each other, so lengthy comments between the parties are likely to be ignored or removed. Remember, comment on the proposals, not the proposer.

As always, if you have any questions, feel free to ask a clerk for assistance.  MBisanz  talk 01:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)