[WikiEN-l] Arbcom

[Avi]

A few thoughts:


1) If part of the issue is the more intense use of Checkuser and
Oversight, a solution would be to expand checkusers and overseers
outside of Arbcom.

2) A larger Arbcom would not necessarily be a bad thing if it thinned
out the workload, thus forestalling burnout and enhancing case
completion time.

3) Allowing admins to "rule" on user cases is fraught with danger, in
my opinion, in that favoritism/cabal accusations will be rife. Various
user essays notwithstanding (unabashed plug), I fear that most people
do _not_ view adminship as a referendum on editor trust, and may feel
rather differently had they known that these people are now authorized
to judge these cases. Yes, this is somewhat oxymoronic as admins
already have the power to block and propose bans, but I think there is
a wiki-wide perception that Arbcom has been selected with the idea of
being a court, where individual admins are more janitor/policemen. Now
if the culture could be changed, that would be a different story.

4) Part of the issue, and I confess to ignorance in the greater realm
of jurisprudence, being neither lawyer, nor judge, nor paralegal, is
that the current process may be somewhat over-bureaucratic. As
mentioned earlier, if a quorum of three Arbitrators is sufficient, and
if much of the current formal drafting and voting can be replaced with
a more streamlined posting of the final opinion, perhaps cases can be
completed more rapidly.

--Avi
-- 
en:User:Avraham
----
pub 1024D/785EA229 3/6/2007 Avi (Wikipedia-related) <aviwiki at gmail.com>
    Primary key fingerprint:  D233 20E7 0697 C3BC 4445 7D45 CBA0 3F46 785E A229