User:Tony1/RfC on the reform of ArbCom hearings/Examples of related policy wording

This page shows examples of how the wording of the draft policy might be affected by the RFC. Deletions are struck through and proposed insertions are italicised.

Proposal 1: Scope of hearings to be stated
Proposed policy wording: *(a) A user who files a case must state their preferred scope for the case. *(b) The Committee's acceptance of a case will include a brief statement of the scope as the Committee sees fit, after considering the requesting user's preferred scope and any comments on the scope by other users on the Request for Arbitration page. *(c) The Committee may modify the scope and the list of parties during the time allotted for evidentiary submissions, by notification on the Evidence page. *(d) Where a contribution falls outside the scope, the clerk (under the guidance of the presiding arbitrator) will ask the participant to withdraw the irrelevant material; if the participant fails to do so, the clerk will remove the irrelevant material.

Proposal 2: Two-week deadline for evidentiary submissions
Possible policy wording: *(a) The Committee's acceptance of a case will include a deadline for submissions to the Evidence page, normally two weeks from the time of acceptance, but longer or shorter at the Committee's discretion. *(b) In circumstances such as a change in the scope, or the illness or unavoidable absence of a party, the Committee may subsequently extend the deadline.

Proposal 3: Workshop page for arbitrators and clerks only
Possible policy wording: When a request for arbitration is accepted, a clerk will create standard "evidence", "workshop", and "proposed decision" pages a standard "evidence" page, and "workshop" and "proposed decision" pages for the use of the arbitrators and clerks alone.

Proposal 4: Lower limits on the length of evidentiary submissions
Possible policy wording: ''Each party may post evidence of up to 500 words (in display mode, including diffs but excluding the main heading, signature and date); this limit may be exceeded only by a clerk's acceptance (under the guidance of the presiding arbitrator) of an application on the "evidence" talk page. Where a party's evidence exceeds the word length, a clerk (under the guidance of the presiding arbitrator) will ask the party to reduce the evidence to the allowed length; if the party fails to do so, a clerk will remove any part of the text to bring it down to length.''

Proposal 5: Restricted third-party input
Possible policy wording: Evidence and statements may be added to the case pages "evidence page" by the arbitrators, the parties, and any other interested editors ''and the parties. Evidence by other interested editors is allowed only by a clerk's acceptance (under the guidance of the presiding arbitrator) of an open application on the "evidence" talk page; generally, only relevant data and NPOV information are accepted as such evidence''.

Proposal 6: Presiding arbitrator
Possible policy wording: The Committee's acceptance of a case will include the naming of an arbitrator to preside over the case (mainly to liaise with a clerk where necessary on behalf of the Committee).