Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Open matters/Devolution

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

Appeal review devolution

 * Arbitrator comments


 * Other comments

Sanction Appeal Review Committee

 * Arbitrator comments


 * Other comments

Block Appeal Review Committee

 * 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)


 * Arbitrator comments


 * Other comments

Administrative Action Appeal Review Committee

 * Arbitrator comments


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


 * Arbitrator comments


 * Other comments

Appeal committee composition

 * 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

 * 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

 * 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

 * Arbitrator comments


 * Other comments


 * 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

 * 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)

Submissions

 * Arbitrator comments


 * Other comments

Direct appeals

 * Arbitrator comments


 * Other comments

Arbitration sanctions

 * Arbitrator comments


 * Other comments

Public appeals

 * Arbitrator comments


 * Other comments

Deliberations

 * 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

 * 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

 * Arbitrator comments


 * Other comments

Acting party

 * 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

 * 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)