User:Arcticocean/AE improvements

The Arbitration Enforcement (AE) process is intended to be a venue to raise complaints that an editor has violated restrictions authorised by the Arbitration Committee. Topics that are subject to ArbCom sanctions contain the most divisive, contentious articles on the English Wikipedia. Although enforcement requests are usually subject to some preliminary discussion among a group of uninvolved administrators, the resulting action is taken by one administrator alone (except for appeals) and at its fundamental level AE is an interaction between a single administrator and the subject of the enforcement request.

However, AE requests are increasingly subject to extensive comments by other editors (from the same or an opposing "faction") who contribute to the topic area associated with the enforcement request. Comments by non-administrators can bring to light important issues that have been missed in the administrators' preliminary evaluation of a complaint, and in errors or misrepresentations in a complaint (many of which are, accidentally or intentionally, incorrect). Nevertheless, I have increasingly found that this commentary has limited value—and in many cases, constitutes the continuation of a long-term content disputes and of factional and editorial rivalries onto the enforcement process. Yet more concerning is the inability of the team of administrators who staff the enforcement pages (as volunteers) to evaluate concerns in peace. Most worryingly of all, I have observed some editors of contentious topic areas turn enforcement into a game in which points can be scored against opponents and administrators can be brought on-side through pats-on-the-back for sanctioning an enemy and vigorous, tag-team haranguing for sanctioning their own. I am of the view that this commentary must be seriously circumscribed so that:

1. Remarks made on the enforcement page have a guaranteed usefulness and do not have to be separated from useless input, or worse ignored altogether;
2. Enforcement is a less stressful experience, and more Wikipedia administrators become willing to assist with the process;
3. Enforcement is less politicised and therefore less prone to error; and
4. The perverse culture of factional warring in some topic areas cannot continue after an arbitration case closes.

As a simple example of a more basic practical issue, I have observed excessive commentary cause a request to become so bloated that no administrator has the time or energy to consider the actual request as well as the additional comments from all and sundry. Many requests are therefore left to languish for days, in which event the resulting enforcement action is never delivered, or is reduced on account of the "staleness" of the event or of "time served".

If the commentary is to be effectively circumscribed, a balance must be struck between eliminating excessively lengthy comments and continuing to allow a limited volume of comments by editors who are not parties to the enforcement request. I have several ideas that may be effective, and I welcome more on the talk page of this essay. Some, but not all, ideas are exclusive:

• A maximum word count of 200 words on all comments by users who are not the complainant or the respondent
• A maximum word count of 750 words on comments by the complainant or the respondent
• The exclusion from an enforcement request of any editor who regularly edits articles, talk pages, or discussions related to the topic area associated with the request (excluding in the role of an uninvolved administrator, mediator, or other conciliatory position)

Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process: Useful advice, but I suspect much process-domination is deliberate, not just mis-guided

Wikipedia:A request for enforcement over a salad: AE is for enforcing decisions, not to play some bizarre, disruptive Game

Wikipedia:Don't moon the jury: Administrators are volunteers!