This is a draft copy of a series of advice, suggestions, and procedural reforms I'd like to see in the Arbitration process. None of this is official.
Introduction edit
Evidence edit
During the evidence phase, involved and interested users are invited to give raw data (diffs), testimony (I saw/believe this) and analysis (the implications are.) They also tend to imply in this phase
The evidence page can quickly spill over into a chaotic mess with claims and counter claims going back and forth. Wikipedia arbitration is not an adversarial system, but it often functions similar to one. The problem is of course, that Arbitration was not designed to handle the adversarial style of evidence, but is rather based more similar to the model of inquisitorial justice, where the arbiters are to ferret out the truth.
Some evidence principles:
- Parsimony - Less is more. When presenting evidence, provide minimal and restrained commentary. Avoid excessive use of adjectives, similarly avoid emotional language. If you can make your point in less words, then do so.
- Avoid melodrama - Related to the above, arbitration is not a game or a TV show where the most flashy speaker sways the jury with emotional appeal and last minute twists.