Some suggestions for Arbcom
editAs an addendum to this statement:
Last time I suggested Arbcom consider:
- better clarity on case scope: –
Not done last time but I should have. I would make this a priority if re-elected;
- more detailed decision rationales: – partly
Done through an enthusiasm for communication with case participants, including in the much-neglected workshop phase. The workshop is vital in teasing out the issues of a case and in discussing how and why the PD is reached; it puzzles me that it is often under-used; and
- swifter acceptance of cases alleging admin misconduct: – Done, by consistently voting to accept these cases during my last term. I’d take the same approach if re-elected. As always, I note that case acceptance does not presuppose any particular finding.
To these I'd add the following:
- Shorter case times: - experience shows slow case timelines are both unnecessary and discourage participation. I’d propose cutting the evidence phase can be cut to one week, noting that the case request usually includes the key points anyway. With better use of workshops the PD drafting phase can also be reduced. Further the Committee should be more willing to resolve cases by motion when the outcome seems clear; and
- AE consistency: - this was raised in some of the questions this year. AE operates inconsistently; it needs clear rules on how long a request should stay open, and more effort from the Committee itself in clarifying how decisions are meant to be applied.
The above are not revolutionary, and they're not meant to be; they are simply a combination of common courtesy and good practice. They also (hopefully) address some common complaints about the way Arbcom has operated in the past. For those that have suggested Arbcom be abolished and replaced with paid mediators, I'd add that this might be a good idea but there's no evidence that it is on the WMF's agenda. Unless/until that occurs, we may as well aim to improve the system we have. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)