User talk:Coren/Fast track

Comments[edit]

Coren, which of the cases that have been accepted since January 1, 2009, would you see as being suitable for a "fast track" solution? I'm having a hard time coming up with any, but perhaps our perspectives are quite different. Risker (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YMMV, but as far as I'm concerned Tang Dynasty, Ryulong, Obama articles, West Bank, Prem Rawat 2, Date delinking, MZMcBride^*, Ayn Rand, SemBubenny and Fringe science all are/would have been suitable. — Coren ^(talk) 15:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^*Although this one would likely have been punted to the whole committee for voting.

And Date Delinking would probably not have been made faster as a result since I would have expected the three abs to also wait for the result of the poll. — Coren ^(talk) 15:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coren, that is all of the cases accepted since January 1; thus, essentially, you propose that the fast track process be the rule, and a full committee hearing a rare and exceptional thing. While I agree that several of these cases could move more quickly, each Committee member reviews evidence/workshops on these cases in their own time leading up to the proposed decision, and the voting itself usually only takes a few days once a proposed decision is posted. The speed bump isn't in full committee participation. Risker (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I hadn't noticed the ones I excluded predated the current committee. Odd coincidence. — Coren ^(talk) 16:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But yes, I'd expect that the fast track, if it works and the community approves of it, would be the "default" way to handle all but the most divisive and complicated of disputes. — Coren ^(talk) 16:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions:

What makes you think this would be any faster?
What makes you think that the RFARs noted above fall outside of the scope of "the most divisive and complicated" disputes?
Why would a decision by 17-20% of the committee be considered acceptable to the community?
Assuming that a decision would be rendered more quickly using this method, why would a faster decision with comparatively little input be more beneficial? Risker (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In order:

Tight focus. Having three arbs able to concentrate on one (or rarely two) cases, and to direct the evidence gathering and inquiry, means that the proper evidence will be available sooner for a decision. The more direct interaction with the participants means that the crux of the problem will be identified sooner, and more precisely. Finally, reaching consensus between three arbs is much easier (and thus faster) than with fifteen. Added 18:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC): Also, more parallelism. It means that fifteen arbs can handle five cases at once; I don't expect (or wish) that this be common, but dividing resources would be helpful when the caseload is high.
That's entirely subjective, and I suppose the committee will get a feel for what problems are ripe for fast track soon enough by experience. My own criterion is whether the problem is fairly focused — that is there is one specific incident, or one well described problem to solve as opposed to a multitude of small problems that cumulate.
Because the overall fairness doesn't change. As long as nobody gets to pick and choose which cases they handle (or which arb handles their case). This does mean we have to be vigilant about proper recusals, but I trust any three of us to be fair, and I have no reason to believe the community does not.
I think that the disadvantage of having fewer arbs comment is more than offset by the greater focus that the arbs that have the case will be able to bring to bear. It means that evidence will be able to be examined more thoroughly, that better interaction with the participants can be had, and that the decision is likely to be more deliberate than if every arb has to split their attention over all cases. It's also to be noted that nothing prevents other arbs from discussion; I would expect the three arbs assigned to the case to keep an ear available for the rest of the committee even if they are, ultimately, responsible for the case.

— Coren ^(talk) 17:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think, based on your responses, that perhaps without recognizing it or saying as much, you are trying to drive changes in the behaviour of individual arbitrators. The only way that this could even possibly be viable is if there was reason to believe that each of the different panels would come to more or less the same conclusion, and to be honest I doubt very much that we would. We'd ask different questions. We'd weigh arguments differently. We'd lose all of the advantages of the broad experience of the committee as a whole (which, after all, is why we are a committee) to gain...I am not sure what the gain is. I see very few of the cases that get accepted by the Committee as having narrowly defined focus; there are big picture issues in all of them, with perhaps one or two exceptions. Risker (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe? I think I'm more trying to give good tools to individual arbitrators. I suppose I have more faith in us individually than collectively— that any one of us can make a good ruling in isolation even if it's not the same one that we'd arrive at collectively. I am sure that any three of us would be enough in tune with the committee that we'd reach results that are, at least, eminently reasonable even if not identical; and that we're all smart enough and wise enough to consult our peers when we need it.

Sure, the actual decision would probably be different with three than with all of us— but I'm not willing to dismiss our ability to make good decisions regardless. I'm not going to presume that those decisions would be "better" or "worse" than the collective decision, or for that matter, that the "collective" decision is necessarily the optimal one against which to judge the others.

There is no question that it would be impossible, in terms of workload, to give every case the same attention than I propose here if we have to all involve ourselves in every case to the same degree. The few of us who even have the time to do so would burn out before the year ends. — Coren ^(talk) 18:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a feeling that, if the evidence talk was used in such a way, it would (in the big hearings) become unwieldy. I think there's a good case for participant subpages, where the user can post their evidence (transcluded) and where, on the talk page, arbitrators can ask questions. If rebuttal is allowed, it could also be posted there, though I fully understand that your proposal seeks to limit this kind of rebuttal. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]