User:Tony1/RfC on the reform of ArbCom hearings

The RFC is of two weeks' duration, running from 00:00, ?? April 2009 (UTC) and concluding 23:59, ?? May 2009 (UTC).

Background

The Arbitration Committee is the peak decision-making body of last resort for dealing with disputes between editors on the English Wikipedia. ArbCom is currently revising the policy that governs its role and processes, and has published a provisional draft for an updated arbitration policy.

The package of six proposals

The draft revision does not address what many editors believe is the tendency for ArbCom's hearings to be unfocused, lengthy and sometimes chaotic. There have been calls for the current structure and rules to be changed to encourage streamlined, focused, orderly and prompt hearings. These calls concern the lack of evidentiary rules, specifically the need to:

• clearly establish the scope of each case at the start, and to insist that parties remove material outside that scope;
• set a two-week deadline for submissions;
• reserve the "workshop" page for arbitrators and clerks alone, because it has no clear evidentiary role and a tendency to encourage parties to make war during what should be a formal, dignified, orderly process;
• set and enforce a more disciplined word limit on submissions;
• allow general editors to submit evidence only by application;
• place more emphasis on active case management, by a "presiding arbitrator" through the clerks.

Objections to the proposals

• Establishing the scope at the start is inflexible, and updating the scope during the submission of evidence might be logistically difficult to achieve.
• Procedural changes should be trialled before writing them into policy.
• Useful evidence by non-party editors might be discouraged by the need to apply to participate.
• Clerks are not appointed to manage cases this closely, even under the guidance of an arbitrator.
• How the Committee allocates cases among arbitrators internally should not be covered in the policy.

This RFC seeks community opinion on the six proposals to put these reforms into effect. They would represent a clear break with the loose, expansionary model that has dominated ArbCom hearings. Please comment and sign below in one of the three Response sections.

Proposals

Proposal 1: Scope of hearings to be stated

Currently: No scope is stated for ArbCom hearings.

Proposal in brief: That the scope be stated at the start of a case and be alterable by ArbCom during the case by announcement; and that evidence outside the scope be removed.

Possible policy wording

Proposal 2: Two-week deadline for evidentiary submissions

Currently: There is no time limit for an ArbCom case.

Proposal in brief: That two weeks be normally allowed for the submission of evidence.

Possible policy wording

Proposal 3: Workshop page for arbitrators and clerks only

Currently: There are three open pages: Request for Arbitration, Evidence, and Workshop.

Proposal in brief: That the "workshop" page be reserved for arbitrators and clerks alone.

Possible policy wording

Proposal 4: Lower limits on the length of evidentiary submissions

Currently: Each party is allowed 1000 words and 100 diffs on the Evidence page; these limits are not generally enforced.

Proposal in brief: A significantly lower cap on the amount of evidence—probably 500 words in display mode, including diffs—with exceptions by application.

Possible policy wording

Proposal 5: Restricted third-party input

Currently: Anyone can post comments on the "evidence" page.

Proposal in brief: That input from other interested editors be allowed on the "evidence" page by application only.

Possible policy wording

Proposal 6: Presiding arbitrator

Currently: There is no clear, transparent line of communication between the arbitrators and the clerk.

Proposal in brief: That for each case, the Committee allocate one of its members to liaise with a clerk on its behalf.

Possible policy wording

Responses

Please respond in one of the following sections and sign.

I support all six proposals

Please comment and sign.

I oppose all six proposals

Please comment and sign.

I support some proposals and oppose others

Please specify which you support and which you oppose, and comment and sign.