User:Coren/Fast track

Case acceptance

TBD; during the experiment participation will be voluntary, but I expect a system by which cases are accepted either for the fast track or the whole committee depending on how arbs vote. Perhaps accept by default for the fast track but allow a majority of arbs to request full committee hearing?

Arb selection

Arbs will be picked from a rotation list of those with the fewest active cases, skipping over any unavailable or recused arbitrators. The order is fixed in advance, and neither arbs nor participants may select the arbitrators for fairness. Example: /Role

Evidence

Participants (and other editors who wish it) will make a statement explaining what the see as the problem and evidence to support their position much the same way we currently do, but will be encouraged to be terse and to keep things focused. The arbitrators and the case clerk will refactor as needed, and format for ease of access.

The arbs handling the case will, in order to get a good picture and make their findings, post questions to the participants with sections provided for answers. Threaded discussion or argumentation will not be tolerated; participants will be allowed to answer the arbs but not each other (although rebuttal evidence is, obviously, welcome so long as it is addressed to the arbs and answers the question).

Workshop

No workshop. The evidence talk page can be used for discussion of points that might have been overlooked by the arbitrators (so that they can inquire about them on the evidence page), and for suggestions on solution and civil discussion with the other participants and the arbs. The arbs are expected to engage in discussion with the participants there, and will keep (with the assistance of the case clerk) very tight reins on decorum, civility and focus.

The talk page is not part of the final case. Archive? Delete? Blank?

Decision

In general, a decision will be posted after deliberation between the case arbs within a few days after the last answers to their questions in evidence. The decision is made final and binding some set interval after that posting (24h? 72h?) to allow the community to review and comment, and to give the opportunity for final tweaks and corrections.

The format of the decision will be much the same as currently, setting out the guiding principles, findings of facts and remedies; but will normally be written more in a prose style with detailed rationale and reasoning; no individual voting will take place on the various sections.

It is expected that, with only three arbs, discussion on wording and propriety of the decision can be arrived at quickly.

Unanimous decision

When all three arbs agree with the proposed decision, they undersign it as a whole.

2:1 decision

If one of the arbitrators does not agree with the other two, they do not undersign the decision and may (but is not required to) write a dissenting opinion. The dissent does not put forth remedies, but may offer alternate principles or findings of facts.

The majority decision is binding.

Possibly allow only unanimous decision (in which case 2:1 would be like the case below, punted to the entire committee for voting).

No decision

If no two arbs are able to reach a decision, or if the arbs feel it required or useful, they may refer the matter to the whole committee for "traditional" voting which would then be guided by the collected evidence and discussion.