5 August 2012 UTC I did find it surprising that nowhere is due process mentioned in Arbcom s procedures There is a fourth problem that hasn t previously been mentioned which is the lack of any practicable route of appeal for Arbcom s decisions Yes in theory Jimbo is the final court of appeal but that is not a route which anyone takes seriously as far as I can tell In practical terms the only recourse is to appeal to Arbcom itself but how likely is it that Arbcom will admit that it s got something wrong If Arbcom s conduct during a case has thrown due process out of the window what is the likelihood that it will find itself at fault Human pride and institutional defensiveness if nothing else will count against it Right now if Arbcom commits an abuse of process there is no way of correcting it other than voting out the offending arbitrators which could take years depending in which tranche of elections they re due to come up for a vote There is no process for anyone other than Arbcom to review cases nor for egregious mishandling of a case to be tackled In effect we have a single accountability moment once a year and there is no accountability no recourse and no effective oversight of how they have conducted themselves What is needed I think is a much stricter set of rules governing what Arbcom does combined with an independent appeals procedure that is empowered to review Arbcom s own conduct and set aside remedies if they have been passed without due process being followed 16 11