31:
276:
250:
226:
202:
178:
154:
121:
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
58:
is the peak decision-making body of last resort for dealing with disputes between editors on the
English Knowledge (XXG). ArbCom is currently revising the policy that governs its role and processes, and has published
85:
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
72:
60:
71:
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
151:
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.
105:
Establishing the scope at the start is inflexible, and updating the scope during the submission of evidence might be logistically difficult to achieve.
75:
to encourage streamlined, focused, orderly and prompt hearings. These calls concern the lack of evidentiary rules, specifically the need to:
223:
A significantly lower cap on the amount of evidence—probably 500 words in display mode, including diffs—with exceptions by application.
46:
The RFC is of two weeks' duration, running from 00:00, ?? April 2009 (UTC) and concluding 23:59, ?? May 2009 (UTC).
39:
A Request for
Comment to determine community support for moving towards a tighter organisational model for ArbCom hearings.
79:
clearly establish the scope of each case at the start, and to insist that parties remove material outside that scope;
217:
Each party is allowed 1000 words and 100 diffs on the
Evidence page; these limits are not generally enforced.
273:
That for each case, the
Committee allocate one of its members to liaise with a clerk on its behalf.
117:
How the
Committee allocates cases among arbitrators internally should not be covered in the policy.
55:
114:
Clerks are not appointed to manage cases this closely, even under the guidance of an arbitrator.
247:
That input from other interested editors be allowed on the "evidence" page by application only.
111:
Useful evidence by non-party editors might be discouraged by the need to apply to participate.
95:
place more emphasis on active case management, by a "presiding arbitrator" through the clerks.
267:
There is no clear, transparent line of communication between the arbitrators and the clerk.
17:
327:
Please specify which you support and which you oppose, and comment and sign.
193:
There are three open pages: Request for
Arbitration, Evidence, and Workshop.
199:
That the "workshop" page be reserved for arbitrators and clerks alone.
108:
Procedural changes should be trialled before writing them into policy.
175:
That two weeks be normally allowed for the submission of evidence.
209:
Proposal 4: Lower limits on the length of evidentiary submissions
25:
92:
allow general editors to submit evidence only by application;
89:
set and enforce a more disciplined word limit on submissions;
185:
Proposal 3: Workshop page for arbitrators and clerks only
161:
Proposal 2: Two-week deadline for evidentiary submissions
73:
calls for the current structure and rules to be changed
61:
a provisional draft for an updated arbitration policy
241:Anyone can post comments on the "evidence" page.
133:
8:
323:I support some proposals and oppose others
169:There is no time limit for an ArbCom case.
137:Proposal 1: Scope of hearings to be stated
233:Proposal 5: Restricted third-party input
82:set a two-week deadline for submissions;
145:No scope is stated for ArbCom hearings.
7:
294:of the following sections and sign.
24:
259:Proposal 6: Presiding arbitrator
126:of the three Response sections.
29:
1:
67:The package of six proposals
301:I support all six proposals
100:Objections to the proposals
341:
312:I oppose all six proposals
316:Please comment and sign.
305:Please comment and sign.
37:This page in a nutshell:
277:Possible policy wording
251:Possible policy wording
227:Possible policy wording
203:Possible policy wording
179:Possible policy wording
155:Possible policy wording
280:
56:Arbitration Committee
290:Please respond in
271:Proposal in brief:
245:Proposal in brief:
221:Proposal in brief:
197:Proposal in brief:
173:Proposal in brief:
149:Proposal in brief:
43:
42:
332:
33:
32:
26:
340:
339:
335:
334:
333:
331:
330:
329:
325:
319:
314:
308:
303:
297:
288:
282:
132:
45:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
338:
336:
324:
321:
313:
310:
302:
299:
287:
284:
131:
128:
119:
118:
115:
112:
109:
106:
102:
101:
97:
96:
93:
90:
87:
83:
80:
69:
68:
52:
51:
41:
40:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
337:
328:
322:
320:
317:
311:
309:
306:
300:
298:
295:
293:
285:
283:
279:
278:
274:
272:
268:
266:
262:
261:
260:
255:
254:
252:
248:
246:
242:
240:
236:
235:
234:
229:
228:
224:
222:
218:
216:
212:
211:
210:
205:
204:
200:
198:
194:
192:
188:
187:
186:
181:
180:
176:
174:
170:
168:
164:
163:
162:
157:
156:
152:
150:
146:
144:
140:
139:
138:
129:
127:
125:
116:
113:
110:
107:
104:
103:
99:
98:
94:
91:
88:
84:
81:
78:
77:
76:
74:
66:
65:
64:
62:
57:
49:
48:
47:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
326:
318:
315:
307:
304:
296:
291:
289:
281:
275:
270:
269:
264:
263:
258:
257:
256:
253:
249:
244:
243:
238:
237:
232:
231:
230:
225:
220:
219:
214:
213:
208:
207:
206:
201:
196:
195:
190:
189:
184:
183:
182:
177:
172:
171:
166:
165:
160:
159:
158:
153:
148:
147:
142:
141:
136:
135:
134:
123:
120:
70:
53:
44:
36:
265:Currently:
239:Currently:
215:Currently:
191:Currently:
167:Currently:
143:Currently:
50:Background
18:User:Tony1
286:Responses
130:Proposals
86:process;
16:<
54:The
292:one
124:one
63:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.