User:Yannismarou/ARBMAC2/A Fool's Guide

A fool's guide to ARBMAC2 (or A boring way to waste the time you could use to create nice articles)

Do you actually know what is going on here?: Do you know the problem or do you just want to pretend you are a smart guy?! Well, if you start writing stuff without being familiar with the issue, then you are just a jerk who will sillily ridicule herself/himself! So, before writing any nonsense of yours, read first Carcaroth's loooong comment here, and especially steps 3 to 7 (by the way, Carcaroth is an arbitrator—please, check who the arbitrators are, so as not to confuse them with the involved parties!). If you decide after your preparation that "time spent discussing the name of the article might [not] be better spent improving articles", then join us!

Do you know that there is an ARBMAC1?: Yes, indeed! We have pleeeeenty of time to pursue various spare-time recreational pursuits. One of this is to go to ARBMAC for the "Macedonia issue" from time to time (after ARBMAC25345967 it is going to be like an officially established periodic meeting). Seriously, now: do not write anything here, if you don't first read carefully ARBAMAC's 1 "records": statements, evidence, findings, final decision, enforcement, remedies, even related talk pages. You should first "absorb" all this information, and then start dealing with Episode II.

No, no; do not edit here!: You want to add a statement? Don't you see the green box! It says that you can edit the page, only if you want to include yourself as an involved party. Otherwise, stay away! However, read the lead, namely the two introductory paragraphs: they offer you an excellent summary of the on-going and impending procedures.

Now, it is time to provide evidence. Now, that the statements are done, interested partied (not necessarily "involved") are invited to provide "evidence" (the main means of evidence are diff autopsies on the article's dead body). If you think you can contribute, read again the informative intro here, and act accordingly. Follow the guidelines; otherwise a clerk may visit your talk page, in order to remind you the rules. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at a workshop, where other editors may draft proposals and post them there for review and comments.

Who's who: In Wikipedia, we have managed to create a bureaucracy even more complexe and dysfunctioning than the bureaucracy of the European Commission. FYI, these are the (main) persons involved in an ARBCOM case:

The filing party: me! No special status! No money! No glory!
The involved parties: Me again! And others! You too I suppose (otherwise, why are you here?! Go away! Write an article instead!)
The Arbitrators: I often have the impression that they are the descendants of this lady.
The clerks: Let's say the ARBCOM's secretariat.
The uninvolved but interested parties: You still have the chance to get involved! Come with us!

Next steps ?: I told you what I know! It is my first ARBCOM case! We are learning together! The guide will be gradually enriched. After all, I am aware of the fact that its importance is not limited to this case solely. It is going to be a sacred heritage for the future generations of ARBMACS' involved parties.

External contributions (most welcomed)

Don't argue opinions, present evidence. The arbitrators won't be interested in your opinions. If you want to join a debate at the arbcom talk pages, don't even bother: the arbs won't be reading them. The arbs only want help in establishing the facts of what happened, so if you can, help them with a short, concise list of diffs demonstrating who did what. If you can't, don't increase the noise.

Don't expect the arbs to decide the content for us. The arbs won't be deciding what the name is going to be, so don't bother giving them arguments about what it should be and why. They are only going to decide by what process the Wikipedia community ought to resolve this question, so if you have an idea about that, present it.

Keep it short. The proceedings will be the less painful for everybody involved the less they are drowned in argument, bickering, ranting and politics. Keep the noise level down.

Be humorless. Avoid using humor altogether. People might not know when you are joking and perceive your words as indications of incivility or trolling. The more deprived of human emotions the better for your case. Besides in the face of ARBCOM blocks and decisions resistance is futile.

... the Arbcom Fugue (in four voices):^[1]