User talk:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris/A pocket guide to Arbitration

Comment

I got a chuckle out of reading this...Alot of it does ring true. when I am not so tired I will make some points. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another case to back up observations made in the pocket guide

* The arbitrators have their pride but most of them want to do the right thing. They will rarely if ever admit that they have botched the management of a case. Instead, they will quietly take steps to correct the problem in future cases. For example, the committee did not acknowledge responsibility for allowing the Workshop and Evidence pages in the aforementioned Abd-WMC case to spin badly out of control. But in a case that followed soon thereafter, they enforced decorum with draconian strictness.

If you want further evidence of an out of control process, I offer my arbitration evidence page [1] and workshop page.[2] You may have to do some sifting but the one way stream of harassment is there. In my case the examples are not as egregious as the Abd-WMC case. What makes my case noteworthy is that this virtual one way stream of harassment occurred through about a dozen sanction processes. This eventually culminated in my topic ban for not accepting a lesser sanction because Arbcom believed the harassment was "mutual". I believe that no one has ever really read the evidence presented and considered context. More of my thoughts here [3] Good luck with your pocket guide and I hope it is useful for others. It was useful to me.--scuro (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very, very good guide. Sorry I haven't read it sooner: an enjoyable read, and doubtless useful for those who are the subject of a case. AGK 22:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A critique

I think you're near the mark in general, though I think you severely underestimate the amount of time and efforts that arbitrators spend sifting through the evidence page and analyzing the arguments therein. Granted, much of that work will be done by the drafting arb(s), with the rest of the committee relying mostly on what elements were pushed to the findings of fact; but we'll all take a look to see if anything obvious was overlooked.

The workshop, on the other hand, has very uneven handling. Some arbitrators never give it more than a cursory look, if that. Some find it valuable as a sounding board for elements of the proposed decision. (I'm in the former camp, in case you were wondering — I think the workshop should be done away with entirely). — Coren ^(talk) 05:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New evidence

In view of Thumperward's admonishment for not participating (enough) in the case, this needs amending. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, comments on the Proposed Decision talk page seem to be read more often than formal /Evidence. Or at least they elicit more replies from the Arbitrators. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm partial to my own pronouncement: 'Beware the lame duck Arbitrators; they will ban editors otherwise "unblockable".' ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to do this

Where I come from we have juries of 12 people making decisions as to guilt or innocence, after which one highly qualified judge decides the sentence. Or we have panels of three magistrates who both decide the case and determine the sentence. I see Arbcom as a jury sized panel of magistrates. Like magistrates they are far from being a random assemblage of citizens, instead being an intensely vetted highly trusted group of our most experienced community members. But do they all have the time for a dozen of them to be fully committed to each case? I've seen them miss very pertinent info and I've also seen enough to suspect that some are more engaged with some cases than others. So my proposal would be to move from the current system of all available non-recused Arbs sit on each case, to a system whereby a panel of five takes on a case. Five rather than three to allow for the possibility that over the course of a case one of the five might unexpectedly have to withdraw. Ϣere SpielChequers 06:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis good

I like it. Tony (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on

Having been an active participant in WP:ARBPIA3, I concur with every word. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]