User:Cinderella157/sandbox review

Looking at a past case with which I was involved, I see many matters that are worthy of comment and note in this case request.


 * WP:ARBGWE was accepted without community attempts to resolve with support by Arbs now opining to decline this one on basis of policy. This is an inconsistency.


 * There is a presumption by some that complaints about Arbs can be dealt with at AIN while others acknowledge it is inappropriate to expect higher position holders to be dealt with by a lesser process. My position is, it is unreasonable for adjudicators to be dealt with within the same process that they adjudicate. However, there is no higher process. This is a deficiency in WP.


 * An Arb case (including WP:ARCA?) has the capacity to deal with an emerging issue of civility or a personal attack without a separate case. Is there evidence that raised same in that process? However, I observe the failure of ArbCom to deal consistently and without (the appearance of) bias.


 * Fairness (or the appearance of fairness) and bias (or the appearance of bias) are central to natural justice (procedural fairness). Natural justice is the "spirit" of Arb policy wrt transparency. My experience is, practice is inconsistent with policy and this "spirit".


 * Arb pages are inherently for dealing with "allegations". The distinction from an insinuation is evidence (or the ability to substantiate). Comments made broadly are not directed at an individual unless there is a "reasonable" case to the contrary.


 * Civility is more than "appearance" - apparent civility may not be. Hypersensitivity can stifle "reasonable" discourse and feigned indignation is a misrepresentation: falling to a personal attack(?), adding to the drama and thereby disrupting WP.


 * I have observed Arbs make much more (IMO) egregious statements without consequence. I have also observed apparent bias by Arbs in dealing with civility and personal attacks being made on Arb pages.


 * WP sanctions are not intended to be punitive in their application but to protect and prevent disruption of WP. While I have observed the application of sanctions contrary to this principle, the matters raised beg the question, what disruption has been caused by BU Rob13 and whether raising this case is not more disruptive?

The conduct may be less than exemplary but I do not believe that this reaches a reasonable threshold for accepting a case against BU Rob13.

I do believe there may be a case for considering more widely the conduct of Arbs in the course of cases and whether they have acted in the spirit of the governing policy - how this can, has been and should be dealt with. This represents a systemic failing - ie for the want of a system. However, nemo iudex in causa sua. The issue is the lack of a reasonable alternative. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)