User:SandyGeorgia/Arbcom processes, setup and instructions

General

1. Failed attempts persist, at least a year now, should be mentioned somewhere in arbcom instructions. [1][2]
2. A very big missing piece is where one puts tangential issues, and what options one has for dealing with them during an arbcase, particularly with editors are not parties. One cannot take something to ANI that involves a current arbcase, as that is forum shopping. Does one take it to Arb Enforcement after a case closes, even if it involves a non-party? WAY TOO MUCH of the arbcom instructions make assumptions that editors know how to handle all arb-related matters. They should all be re-written for a Dummies for 101 approach, because most arbcases do not involve repeat offenders, so most editors will be new to arb-related processes. Worse, even those who have been through a previous arbcase don't always know how to handle certain matters. A well-written FAQ is needed. Or something.
3. Standard DR suspended? [3]
4. On what page and by what process does one suggest a party be added to the case? Is that a workshop thing, or a talk page thing?
5. When a phase closes, why do not clerks clear out the unused, empty, sample templates for readability? Eg see here, here, and here.

Case requests

1. The whole business of whether diffs presented during case request phase carry over and are considered during evidence phase needs to be better sorted, and better explained for the non cognoscenti.

Deadlines

1. Clarify that pages close after 23:59 UTC, so people don't have to keep asking.

Main case page

1. Once the case is opened, all Case request statements except those from the parties are collapsed. This means when searching for a diff provided at the case request stage, one has to open the collapse before searching. Which is frustrating. I understand that it is expedient to have all of the case request posts collapsed in the final, archived version of the case, but can that be done when the case closes, instead of when the case opens?

Talk pages and communication with arbs and clerks

1. It appears that a) without pinging, it is hard to get a response from arbs or clerks, but that b) with pinging, one often gets a response. I hate pinging people, since I hate being pinged. Are we supposed to ping or not ?
2. Arb cases are stressful enough without having the peanut gallery answer questions posed for the arbs on case talk pages, that are better answered by clerks or arbs. How to fix this?
3. Aside, same thing occurring on the Workshop pages, where non-arbs and non-clerks are telling others what the case is and is about, and what they can and cannot present. Often erroneously. How to solve that? (The answer is much more active clerking, I think ... )
4. Five days after request for word limits for increase, no clear answer on talk, but much confusion. Why do things like this fall through the cracks?
5. Email, pinging arbs, etc, all need to cleared up. During the Medicine case, when arbs were pinged, it was a problem that someone pinged all arbs, and had to be reminded that drafting arbs sufficed. When arbs were emailed, they scarcely had time to respond, and could not do so on a timely basis. And email is not transparent, and should be used only for highly confidential, no? Where are these lines drawn, it is not clear to participants.

Word limits

1. Put the word count tool links on the evidence page. They are on the main case page, so one often has to navigate back to find them.
2. Clarify whether headings suggested in instructions count in limit
3. Clarify whether providing an intext courtesy link for context to the full discussion in which a specific diff occurs, along with the specific diff, counts towards diff limit

   Sample: In this discussion A said B.[4]. The specific diff counts towards the limit, but should the helpful link to full context also count? The diff limit discourages the courtesy link to the full discussion, and often leads to one being accused of distorting by not including full context. At the same time, word limits often prevent one from presenting full context. (Because it is assumed that one will more fully explain at Workshop? What if one would rather skip the Mudslinging page, and wait to find out which evidence the arbs care about? That is the missing stage: as in, arbs, here's the basic diffs, what else do you want here, can we skip over the mudslinging phase?)

Evidence page

1. Here is something that does nothing but add tension and mud-slinging and agida

Evidence suggested format

Evidence presented by {your user name} before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person {Write your assertion here} Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring. {Write your assertion here} Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

1. 1. Do the headings get added to word count? Because if they do, that takes a huge chunk out of actual evidence.
   2. The inflammatory things written in these sub-headings can increase tension.
   3. For those reasons, I skipped all headings here, and instead numbered my points for reference. Not sure this is any better than the suggested method, but the suggested method only serves to increase tensions via inflammatory and hurtful sub-headings.
2. The whole issue of subpages in evidence, when they should be used, what happens to them after case closes (go back and find discussion with David Fuchs from Medicine case). This also ties in to Communication issues, as I was told (or misunderstood?) that it was OK to use subpages.[5]

Workshop pages

1. Sample, here. When one clicks on a diff, one has no idea to what the response refers, and has to exit history to go find the section, because there are often duplicate section names. Each person's section should have a specific section name, so we know where to find things when the page gets convoluted.

   Better example: look how misleading this page diff is as relates to figuring out to what BDD is responding. Search the page for "Yes, I'd like to see something along these lines included." The page diff makes it look like BDD is responding to Canvassing, when actual response is to Bad behavior. So one cannot pull a page diff to catch up, and is obligated to read the full page, over and over, to figure out what response goes with what point.

2. The Workshop may be a long-established process, but all it adds is mudslinging. From often confused parties. With often mountains of unnecessary posting because the often confused parties are chasing their tails, proposing useless principles, findings and remedies. I don't know how to fix this, but It Is Awful.
3. What would have been the correct way to do this? Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop#POLEMIC redacted It is astounding how much the little things are unclear here. I am sure not going to waste precious evidence or other space to call attention to the fact that all I want is for the arbs to say yea or nay, and if yea, then who removes it and how? This is such a trivial side issue, but serves as an example that even one who has been through an arbcase may not know where to park things or how to get answers on certain things.
4. Another sample of same is that, in the Medicine Workshop, I had no idea not to add a proposal about a non-party. And I'm paying the price for having done that. Where does that kind of thing get sorted, explained, and why did some clerk not tell me that?
5. And this note about leftover sections;[6] that stuff is crazy making and makes it hard to figure out where to respond. Redesign the whole page so that each editor copies in only the templates they need. Alternately, remind them in the instructions to delete the unused. And figure out a way for each editor to have unique section header names.

   Do a template for standard form that can be subst’d ??

6. Generally, this phase of an arbcase is horrid and unproductive. How to fix that requires some real thinking outside of the box, and might be advanced via an arb-sponsored workshop somewhere. It would be really helpful to understand what the heck the arbs get out of this lengthy mud-slinging, how they view this as helpful, and whether we need a seriously good writer to put together an effective guide to arbitration to minimize some of the horror of this phase. Edit count as a sample of use of the page that is going nowhere.
7. In the Medicine arbcase, a sitting arb put up multiple "findings" about me that were based on zero evidence, with zero diffs. (And, in that case, no such diffs backing the statements by the arb exist.) How does that work? Why aren't things like that clerked? Would not any other editor be sanctioned for ASPERSIONS if they did that? There is a big disconnect between the Evidence page and the Workshop page, and this disconnect contributes to the mudslinging. If a sitting arb (who evidenced no familiarity with the case or the evidence) can do it, what hope is there for decorum on arbpages?