Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Open matters/Devolution

Preface

Some of the proposals below are extracted from several earlier documents (chiefly Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/Appeals Review List and Wikipedia:Devolution) as well as earlier discussion by the Arbitration Committee. No attempt has been made to replicate the full rationale for those proposals here.

Proposals

Appeal review devolution

Proposal: The Arbitration Committee shall delegate routine review of editor appeals (such as appeals of blocks or imposed sanctions) that are brought before it to one or more subsidiary appeal review committees (ARCs).

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

Appeal review committees

Sanction Appeal Review Committee

Proposal: A Sanction Appeal Review Committee (SARC) shall be created to review appeals of any administrative measures taken under the provisions of an Arbitration Committee ruling (including, but not limited to, article probation and discretionary sanctions).

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

Block Appeal Review Committee

Proposal: A Block Appeal Review Committee (BARC) shall be created to review appeals of any blocks and bans imposed by administrators.

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

• What's the rationale for having this Committee separate from (for example) the AAAC? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• I thought that any administrator could review any other administrator's block appeal, and that this was the purpose of Template:Unblock and Category:Requests for unblock; which rather makes this committee unnecessary. Or is the point of this committee to actually consider sanctions, not just appeals, for unjustified blocks? --GRuban (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: The BARC shall not address matters within the scope of the SARC.

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

Administrative Action Appeal Review Committee

Proposal: An Administrative Action Appeal Review Committee (AAARC) shall be created to review appeals of all administrative actions.

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

• Similarly to my above comment, how does this committee interact with Wikipedia:Deletion review and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection? --GRuban (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: The AAAC shall not address matters within the scopes of the SARC and BARC.

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

Appeal committee composition

Proposal: Members of all ARCs shall be appointed by the Arbitration Committee.

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

• In connection with my other comments regarding empaneling a set of editors representing the consensus values, as well as the participatory culture of Wikipedia, I request greater specificity in the proposed appointment process. My major concern relates to who can stand as candidates for appointment to these bodies. On one hand, I would be opposed to giving ArbComm carte blanche to appoint and remove ARC members at will and I would also be opposed to direct elections on the other hand. Perhaps there should be some standing body of volunteers who are selected at random for overlapping and exclusive ARC terms? This suggestion may not be wholly in line with my other comments and concerns which take greater precedence. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Membership

Proposal variants: 1. Membership of an ARC shall be open to any administrator. 2. Membership of an ARC shall be open to any user in good standing.

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

• I'll obviously prefer the second variant. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• I worry about selection biases and potential for groupthink that accompanies any proposal for limiting ARC membership to admins only. There are many able and dedicated editors, who despite having chosen to forgo the hand-shaking and baby-kissing necessary for a successful RFA, have substantial experience and expertise that could be brought to bear in these appeal committees. Obviously, some rigorous peer-reviewed or other accountable selection mechanism would need to be implemented, but I am wholly opposed to limiting the power of review committee activities to a largely self-selected set of editors. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Size

Proposal: Each ARC shall be composed of fifteen editors.

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

• Is this an arbitrary, expedient, or redundant size? By that I mean; was this a odd number someone liked, an existing committee size that has proved to be most effective, or the necessary size to yield a regular quorum? Madcoverboy (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Terms

Proposal: Members of an ARC shall serve six-month terms.

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

Proposal variants: 1. Members of an ARC shall be permitted to serve multiple consecutive terms. 2. Members of an ARC shall be permitted to serve multiple non-consecutive terms. 3. Members of an ARC shall not be permitted to serve multiple terms.

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

• Prefer leaving 1 and/or 2 open; if there's significant reason to oppose a member to serve another term, then they won't be appointed for that term (consecutive or non-consecutive). I don't see the need to confine members not to serve multiple terms. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• In connection with my previous post regarding opposition to admin-only membership on the basis of biases arising due to self-selection and groupthink, I think it would behoove and reflect well upon the participatory spirit of the Wikipedia project/wiki model to impose strict term limits and not allow ARC members to serve consecutive or multiple terms. Certainly there is a cost to be paid by loss of experience and familiarity with precedent, but I don't imagine that the outcomes and activities of these committees will be relegated down any memory holes. Indeed, I worry about the calcification and stratification of our governance structure and would emphatically encourage churn in the membership of these bodies to prevent bureaucratic exhaustion. Moreover, such churn would also disabuse allegations of cabalism and ensure that the actions being heard and enforced by these bodies represent a wide consensus among the community. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal

Proposal: Members of an ARC may be removed by the Arbitration Committee.

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

• Is this the only mechanism for removal of ARC members? One can easily imagine ArbComm becoming saturated ARC-member removal petitions rather than attending to more critical dispute resolution and enforcement actions. Indeed, this singular line of accountability opens the process up to allegations of being kangaroo courts. I would reiterate my support of limited terms to encourage membership churn and avoid the inertia of incumbency and procedural calcification. Clearly, in instances of obvious abuse, conflict of interst, or other grave improprieties ArbComm should have recourse to ensure that ARC actions are equitably and justifiably enforced. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Appeal committee procedures

Submissions

Proposal: Any editor subject to an administrative action for which there exists an applicable ARC may appeal to that ARC for review of the action.

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

Direct appeals

Proposal: Editors who believe that the applicable ARC will be unable to properly consider their appeal may request that the Arbitration Committee review it directly.

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

Arbitration sanctions

Proposal: Sanctions imposed directly by the Arbitration Committee as part of an arbitration case shall not be subject to appeal to an ARC.

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

Public appeals

Proposal: All appeals to an ARC shall be public.

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

Deliberations

Proposal: ARCs shall conduct all deliberations publicly.

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

• Yes please. No more of this IRC, email, off-wiki deliberation that smells of default judgment. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Adoption of decisions

Proposal variants: 1. ARCs shall produce a final decision by rough consensus. 2. ARCs shall produce a final decision by majority vote.

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

• Prefer second variant - first variant represents part of the reason we have trouble with certain community decisions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Prefer first variant - Consensus formation has been and should be continue to be the foundation of decision making if only to protect the rights of minority and/or unpopular views. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Implementation of decisions

Proposal: When deliberations are complete, an ARC shall confirm, modify, or reverse the administrative action which was appealed.

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

Acting party

Proposal variants: 1. An ARC shall take the appropriate action directly. Further appeals may be made to the Arbitration Committee directly. 2. An ARC shall make a recommendation to the Arbitration Committee, which may choose to accept the proposed action or to hear the appeal directly, at its discretion.

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

• Prefer the first variant. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Prefer first. The whole idea of this process is to expedite not duplicate work, no? Would it be unreasonable to expect the appealing party to meet some additional criteria so as not to make the appeal an automatic outcome of every ARC decision? Madcoverboy (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Inability to decide

Proposal: If an ARC is unable to come to a decision, for whatever reason, it shall make a statement to that effect to the Arbitration Committee.

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

• Of course; any of the proposals at this point that I haven't commented on I agree with in the same way. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Clearly, if a sub-body cannot make a decision on an action within its charter, the affected parties should have recourse to appeal to a body to make such a decision and enforce an action. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)