User:FT2/RFAV

Intro
There were several users discussing on Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2005 about ArbCom workl;oad and ways to streamline and reduce the workload.

Principles:
 * 1) ArbCom is a last resort, there should be a "fast track" way to rule (as opposed to comment or mediate) in more common everyday situations.
 * 2) Ideally this would be some kind of speedy vote or speedy opinion. The problem with nost such proposals is the perceived quality of the decision.
 * 3) Most disputes are decidable without the full weight of ArbCom. often what is needed is a ruling whether behavior X is a breach of policy or not.
 * 4) There is no reason this cannot be decided by vote of administrators.
 * 5) It can be made neutral.

Summary
What I *could* see being useful, would be a "fast track" queue (similar to "speedy delete"), where it was not so much "please arbitrate" as "please rule yes/no whether specific policies have been significantly breached". So users could cite a behavior and DIFFs (similar to a case for VfD) and ask simply, "has NPOV been breached" or "is this a personal attack" or "Could I have a ruling that these are original research and user X should not add material without proper citations". Admins can quickly check the cited references, and rule how they see it, with comments. This can then be used either on the page to bring an editor into line, or as independent prior opinion from experienced users that there is a genuine case for further review by ArbCom if needed. If you added a rule that a user ruled by this process to be in breach of Wiki policy was then "on notice" that their behavior needed to change, then they could be banned for (say) 72 hrs at a time, if it continued, without accusations of Admin bias, that would probably stop a lot of problems dead in their tracks. FT2 18:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)