Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Expansion of Ban Appeals Subcommittee

Background
Starting in the second half of 2011, the Arbitration Committee has been considering a potential change to the structure of its Ban Appeals Subcommittee to include non-arbitrator seats.

The role of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee is to hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users, pursuant to the second clause of Section 1.1 of the Arbitration Policy. The subcommittee currently consists of three arbitrators, whose seats on the subcommittee are rotated on an irregular schedule. The subcommittee typically communicates directly with appellants via email; simple cases may be resolved directly by the subcommittee, while more complex ones are often sent to the Arbitration Committee as a whole for additional review.

A hybrid subcommittee structure is currently used for the Arbitration Committee's Audit Subcommittee, which consists of three arbitrators and three non-arbitrators selected directly from the community. The hybrid model offers several advantages over an arbitrator-only model, including increasing community involvement in the arbitration process and increasing the number of people available to address requests. However, concerns have also been raised regarding the feasibility of selecting additional community members, given the traditionally low number of viable candidates in prior selection cycles.

Request for comments
Editors are invited to comment regarding a potential change to the structure of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee to incorporate non-arbitrator seats. Editors are also invited to suggest other improvements to the ban appeals process. Kirill [talk] 20:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Instructions
This request for comments is organized in three sections; please feel free to respond in any or all of them.

The first section is for comments that directly address the potential change to the structure of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. The purpose of this section is to solicit community input and feedback regarding the potential change being considered by the Committee. Comments should, at a minimum, indicate whether the potential change is a desirable one.

Editors who wish to comment should create a new sub-section for their comments at the bottom of the section, using the following boilerplate:

Discussion about this comment
The second section is a place where editors may indicate their interest in serving as non-arbitrator members of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee if the change is implemented. The purpose of this section is to allow the Committee to gauge whether a sufficient number of potential volunteers exists to allow the change to be implemented.

The third section is for other suggested improvements to the ban appeals process that are not directly related to the potential change discussed above. The purpose of this section is to solicit additional ideas for improving the process beyond those already under consideration by the Committee.

Editors who wish to suggest an improvement should create a new sub-section for their suggestion at the bottom of the section, using the following boilerplate:

Discussion about this suggestion
If you wish to suggest multiple unrelated improvements, please create a separate sub-section for each to more easily allow independent discussion of each suggestion.

Commment from Lord Roem
In short, the structure for AUSC is a strong model for any expansion of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. The AUSC demonstrates that community (non-arb) members can work, coordinate, and organize effectively alongside ever-busy arbitrators, in a manner that efficiently delegates an important responsibility to a subset of the larger Arbitration Committee. Thus, I feel the change would serve a net positive.

Here's what I think such a change should entail --

Just like AUSC, which has three community members, the newly expanded Ban Appeals Subcommittee should have three community members. While any number is in some ways arbitrary, three seems to fit a middle ground between "two few" and "too many". Remember, we're trying to delegate. Delegation works best when you have a small group which can be more efficient. Delays will happen in a group of too many members, of too large an expansion. The purpose is to give a heavy area of work -- ban appeals -- to a small group, to alleviate burdens from arbitrators.

As to the terms of these three community members, I think one year is appropriate. It gives them enough time to really get a handle of the job while not too long where their inclusion on the committee is not subject to community review.

The AUSC structure is one that is a proven success. We should be keen of that in making this change.

-- Lord Roem (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors who agree with this comment

 * 1) I like the idea very much. Not only will this allow better community involvement but it would increase Arbcoms wingspan and allow them more time to work on Arbcom related tasks without being overworked. Kumioko (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) As I said below, the only thing that's really needed for BASC is the ability to make predictive value judgements. No need to restrict it only to Arbs. As long as someone is foundation identified (and therefore able to see confidential communication and data), it doesn't have to be Arbs.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  23:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) BASC has a bigger power than Arbcom, but it includes only a few members. Hence it is more prone to making mistakes. Increasing the number of members is a step in right direction. My very best wishes (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, agreed. Steven   Zhang  Get involved in DR! 23:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) This is an excellent idea! Congratulations to Kirill and Roem for suggesting it! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) The 3:3 mix seems to work rather well on AUSC, and has never posed a problem with voting "ties", since the actual actions (removal of tools, etc.) by the AUSC are simply recommendations that ArbCom takes that action. Jclemens (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Though I wonder when reading: "The Audit Subcommittee is composed of three arbitrators selected by the Arbitration Committee and three community members appointed by the Committee following advisory processes." - What if there are more volunteers than seats? Who decides? As the community is who bans, I would think the community should select who "un-bans"? - jc37 10:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) I think Lord Roem has put things very succinctly. AUSC is a proven success and I believe that BASC could work in the same way. Worm TT( talk ) 20:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Hasteur (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree with the general idea of community involvement in this process. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) I think the AUSC model should be replicated for BASC. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Let's give it a try. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  11:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about this comment

 * The two bodies are completely different, BASC is exercising ARB powers, which means there are issues about delegating - effectively creating unelected mini-arbs.  AUSC has an audit role, the concerns are rather the reverse, that Arbitrators should not be auditing themselves, nor indeed appointing their won auditors. Rich Farmbrough, 22:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC).


 * I see what you're saying, but I think the point is actually the opposite. Both AUSC and BASC serve as delegated roles, in both instances performing actions which Arbitrators usually would handle. Nevertheless, you are right on one point, that BASC may be functionally more important due to both the nature and quantity of ban appeals. However, I don't think that changes our consideration for structure here. Only some way of intensive vetting/voting for the BASC members. The structure - 3 non-arbs and 3 arbs - is a proven example, in the context of organization. But maybe not, as you suggest, in how those non-arbs are selected. You have a fair point there. Lord Roem (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For what's it worth, I at least partially agree with Rich on this. I think it would be better if the Audit Subcommittee was a stand alone committee, in the same way the Mediation Committee and Arbitration Committee are sister committees. Where I perhaps differ from Rich is that I also think the Ban Appeal Subcommittee should be completely separate from the Arbitration Committee, if only to spread the work load. However, it's my understanding that this is a minority view, both on the Arbitration Committee, and amongst the wider editing community. Overall, I consider this proposal to be a small step in the right direction. PhilKnight (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I dunno. AFAICT, I think the system looks fine, though I think I would be more comfortable with the community being a touch more involved somewhere in the selection process. - jc37 10:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Nobody Ent
Adjudication and audit are distinct functions; non-arbcom members of the audit committee are necessary (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?) for auditing what arbcom does behind closed doors but not necessary for hearing ban appeals. Doubling the size of the committee from three to six increases the number of one to one pairings from three to 15, resulting in deliberation/communication time increase with no discernable benefit.

Given the difficulty in getting candidates due, in part to the time necessary to do the job I'm puzzled by this tendency to suggest motions which will increase the time load of the arbitration committee.

Discussion about this comment

 * Arbs spend a large amount of their time dealing with the worst that Wikipedia has to offer. For good or ill, I'd have a hard time believing that all of that exposure dosen't change how they look at other users, especially banned ones.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  13:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly blunt, I'm entirely welcoming the idea that I can even further reduce my workload (and incoming email load) in dealing with appeals from banned users, increase community involvement in the committee, and promote transparency in the process. The more we give people glimpses into our workload, the more frequent the "How do you guys manage all that?" comments.  Subdividing the work is a good way to make sure that the arbitrators handling routine requests on a day-to-day basis are the ones most interested and involved in that area. Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment from SilkTork (pool of volunteers)
The reality of how ban appeals are handled by the Arbitration Committee is that, regardless of having a named Subcommittee, appeals are picked up by whoever in the full Committee is available and inclined to pick up the appeal; other members of the Committee may give their views according to their availability and inclination; and a decision is made which is left open for a few days to see if there is any disagreement. It's not a perfect system, but it does have the advantage of being flexible and of being realistic with the time-management of busy volunteers.

In working out an improved system I would welcome looking at a pool of volunteers rather than a fixed number (though building into the process an agreed minimum number of Arbs and non-Arbs needed for a decision to be actioned), so that there is the same degree of flexibility and realism as present in the current set up.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  23:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors who agree with this suggestion

 * 1) I like the idea.  The example you give seems logical.  --Nouniquenames (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about this comment

 * Hmm. Interesting idea. Could you, perhaps, go in a bit more detail to what you mean by a 'pool of volunteers'? Maybe provide an example of an appeal going through the process to give the proposal more context? That would be great, as this is an intriguing concept. Lord Roem (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, like the pool of bureaucrats. There are a number of users who have applied for and been accepted as Ban Appeal Reviewers (BARs). It may be agreed that there needs to be a minimum of three people responding to an appeal, at least one of which should be an Arb and at least one a non-Arb (a BAR). Only an Arb can close and action an appeal. There is no maximum on the number of Arbs and BARs who comment (at the moment what happens is that straightforward appeals and low importance appeals tend to be dealt with by one or two Arbs, while the complex and/or high profile or subtle appeals get the attention of most if not all the Arbs - I should imagine the same would apply to this system, and as the number of BARs would not be huge, I see no need to limit participation - same as we do not limit participation in RfC or AfD). Example appeal: 1) a serial sock-puppeter is caught again but tries to pretend he is a new user and everyone has made a mistake; a BAR responds and declines; an Arb responds and declines; the decision is held for seven days for any other views; somebody - BAR or ARB - supports; the Arb or any other Arb formally declines the appeal and closes it. 2) a banned user who produced excellent work but was very disruptive and uncivil makes a sixth month appeal along the lines of -"it's my sixth month appeal, it's about time you fucking wankers let me back in - I can see where idiots are ruining my Featured Article and it's driving me nuts - nobody but me can put it right as nobody else understands the subject of Greased Monkey Nuts like me"; an Arb declines; a BAR supports, then two more BARs decline; the decision is held for seven more days during which time four more Arbs and five BARs decline and one supports; an Arb formally closes the appeal as a decline.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  20:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * After reading your more detailed explanation, I think that's definitely a workable system. I'd have no objection/problem with that, if it were adopted. Nevertheless, it would still be my second choice, as I think a small committee, as opposed to a 'pool' (even if small), is a more workable and/or efficient mechanism of review. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this might work if: a.) there are 3 non-arb seats and b.) the seats are filled for any particular review by anyone in the pool who volunteers for the particular task. (If more than 3 from the pool volunteer, determine randomly.) This would be nice as to allow for when individuals may go temporarily on wikibreak, etc. Also, if done this way, it would be possible to just say that anyone who has been entrusted by the community with the particular toolset (who has also gone through the training/mentorship that appears to also be required) is automatically part of this pool.  This would greatly alleviate my concerns that the community be more involved in the selection process, since the community entrusted the individual with the tools in question. And finally it has the benefit of not needing the "1-year" term. One last thing though, the community (and/or arbcomm of course) should be able to remove anyone from the pool )due to disruption/abuse/etc) through the typical hybrid voting/consensus similar to other tool-related consensual discussions (like RfA). - jc37 10:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is important to create exit routes for trusted positions - either through time-limiting the position (as with Arbs), or through a recall process. I think it would be helpful to have a simple exit route built into this process right from the start.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  20:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The easiest is probably time-limited but with the terms shifted so that there is certain continuity. Recall would lead to unnecessary drama as usual.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  21:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree too. I can't think of a way which recall would work particularly well in these circumstances, it'd all be based on second hand information, surely. Worm TT( talk ) 21:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment from SilkTork (accountability)
I'd be interested in appeals being made on Wikipedia with appropriate transparency and record keeping. Only if there were privacy issues should an appeal be looked at via emails.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  23:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about this comment

 * I definitely support this, though, frankly speaking, it would be good if all activity of ArbCom, with obvious privacy-related exceptions, would be made more transparent and had some record-keeping.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. Yes, it would good to introduce a bit more transparency and, no, it would bring a host of new problems with it. For instance, it would likely make appeals a target for disruption and/or grandstanding by very properly banned users. To put this in perspective, these include people banned on child protection grounds, serial trolls and harassers, serial disruptive socks, obsessive conspiracy-mongers of various descriptions etc, and the logisitical difficulties of giving them an opportunity to participate without getting up to mischief the second they're unblocked. It is worth reinforcing that a good many people are longterm blocked/banned for very good reasons (which is not to say that they'll always need to remain banned, many do move on from/grow out of the problematic behaviour.  Roger Davies  talk 12:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Roger. Most ban appeals can already be done on wiki, by putting a request to put the appeal on say WP:AN. The BASC process is something different, and whilst it'd be good to introduce transparency - I don't believe that it should be done on-wiki. Worm TT( talk ) 21:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment from SilkTork (Unblock Ticket Request System)
Is it worth looking to see if the Unblock Ticket Request System - or elements of it - can be incorporated into a new system?  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  23:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment from jc37
As a ban is essentially an advanced type of blocking, anyone on this committee should have been entrusted with the tools to be able to block/unblock. And since they may need to assess an individuals edits, they should be able to see deleted edits.

This is similar to the guideline that only those who can delete a page should close a discussion with a result of delete.

I'm phrasing it this way in case some time in the future such administrative tools are not limited to admins only. (For example, "researcher" can see deleted edits.) - jc37 09:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors who agree with this comment

 * 1) Strong support - jc37 09:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I think at the very least members would have to be given the ability to view deleted pages. PhilKnight (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about this comment

 * Disagree. First, I think non-administrators bring a valuable perspective. I have encountered more than a small number of admins who are short-tempered, and I think this is brought on by the amount of time that they spend dealing with bad stuff like vandalism patrol and the dramaboards. I think that more diversity would be better. Second, just because someone doesn't have the administrative permission to do something doesn't mean that they are incapable of good judgment about that action. Third, while I agree that any non-admin who is appointed to the role would likely need to be given permission to look at revdeled edits, those users could get this permission in the context of this role only and have the information given to them by email instead of being given revdel permission. Combined, I think that non-admins can and should be included on the ban appeals subcommittee if it will be expanded. Pine✉ 08:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In fact, non-admins have all the tools they need for scrutiny bundled into the checkuser/oversight packages. (They can't block, unblock, delete or undelete though.) Checkuser is essential for BASC as so many of its cases revolve around sockpuppetry. The Committee strongly supported giving non-admins these extra tools last year expressly to open up AUSC to non-admins. Equally, the Committee also appointed a non-admin to AUSC last year as the editor in question was one of the best candidates.  Roger Davies  talk 12:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In which case, BASC candidates should be subject to the same scrutiny as AUSC candidates. I have no issue with that, and see no reason they need by admins. Worm TT( talk ) 21:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. And while I think of it, although I've commented specifically about Checkuser. Oversight is also important for BASC, not to have the ability to remove stuff but for the ability to see what has been removed. This is often necessary for harrassment/hounding appeals,  Roger Davies  talk 17:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment from jc37 (additional)
As a ban all too often has issues of sock puppetry involved, anyone on this committee should have been entrusted with the checkuser tools. - jc37 09:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors who agree with this comment

 * 1) I'm adding this separate from the previous suggestion because, as proposed, there will be 3 arbs and 3 non-arbs on this committee. And since all arbs are also CUs, there may not be a need for the non arbs to be as well. So I'm not as strongly endorsing this as I am the one above. (And though I didn't suggest it, I suppose I have similar thoughts concerning oversight as well.) - jc37 09:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes, this would be necessary to review checkuser blocks. PhilKnight (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about this comment

 * Disagree I'm not sure why it would be necessary for BASC members to have CU tools. Plenty of admins can ban accounts without the CU tool based on information given to them by checkusers. Review of the CU tool is done by the Audit Subcommittee, not by BASC. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 08:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You'd be surprised how many ban appeals involve socking. Probably at least half, maybe more. CU is essential too to avoid splitting a subcommittee into first- and second-class members. Then again, it's not the tool itself but the data that derives from it that are covered by the WMF privacy policy. It doesn't make much sense to have a committee where the members can't share data among themselves,  Roger Davies  talk 12:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that sock appeals would end up at AUSC instead of BASC. That said, if I was selected to BASC, I would identify to the Foundation to get access to the tools for the sole purpose of BASC reviews unless I'm given approval for broader use of the tools, and I hope that other BASC volunteers would agree to do the same. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 21:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, sock appeals go BASC because there's no reason for a sock appeal to automatically trigger an investigation of the blocking functionary. Sock appeals do very occasionally expose underlying problems and we aim to clear those up.  Roger Davies  talk 17:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly Disagree A CU can check for socks for bans, why not for appeals? --Nouniquenames (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment from My76Strat
I am happy seeing this RfC, and the willingness to consider change as a means to a better end. I personally feel that arbitrators have, and will always have a completely full plate fulfilling that obligation. I also believe it wrong, and know of no other model where the jurist adjudicating a remedy sits also as the appellate for the same adjudication. For reasons related to this premise, I suggest ban appeals should be a completely separate committee, elected by the community to serve in that unique capacity. My76Strat (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Editors who agree with this comment

 * 1) I fully support this.  The Ban Appeals Subcommittee should be filled with seats utterly, completely different from the members of the Arbitration Committee.  At the same time, rename it to 'Ban Appeals Committee'.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) While I agree with Roger's comment, that is the majority of ban appeal requests are from users who weren't blocked by ArbCom, I still think this is a good idea, as it would help spread the workload. PhilKnight (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Penyulap   ☏  20:35, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) --Nouniquenames (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about this comment
An important distinction will coexist upon the manner of filling these seats. If members are seated by ArbCom appointment, it appears reasonable to include an arbitrator (with or without !vote) perhaps seated as chair. If the community !votes to fill seats, full autonomy appears more beneficial. My76Strat (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As a point of information, BASC hears very few appeals of ArbCom decisions. It deals mostly with final appeals from admin blocks and acts as the final appeal for blocks/bans made at WP:AE and by the community. What's more to put this into a larger context, and to complicate matters slightly, Wikipedia has a long tradition of "appeals" to the person/entity imposing a sanction. For instance, the recommended first port of call by a blocked user is to the blocking admin or back to the community if the ban was placed at WP:AN, WP:ANI or WP:AE. Often, these are not really appeals at all, but requests for reconsideration/amendment, usually on the basis of changed behaviour or whatever.  Roger Davies  talk 11:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Equally, and this is in response to Phil's point above, if there were more non-arbitrators involved to help with background investigations and so on, the individual workload wouldn't be that great.  Roger Davies  talk 12:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That latter suggestion is anyway possible, Roger - for that you don't have to have the two committees sharing members (although having them truly separated, of course, also helps in bringing the workload down). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Even If you do change things to the "Ban Appeals Committee" and remove Arbcom, which I could see working, I would still recommend an Arb sit on it, as they would often have relevant information. I'd also suggest it was completely separate from community unblocking/unbanning - it'd be particularly galling if the same name appeared in both. I do take on board the difference between reconsideration and appeals, however if this system was well defined - it shouldn't be a problem. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 21:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite, there are great advantages. Ease of communication, for one, and access to archives for another.  Roger Davies  talk 17:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that would still work without having an Arb on this committee, Worm That Turned - communication then has to go through talkpages (where transparency is possible) or (where not) mailing lists. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree it would work, but I think the benefit of having an Arb (or an Arb liaison) would be worth it. Contacting the Arbs takes time on mailing lists - it's not all that quick, but having a direct contact would be invaluable. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 08:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 'it's not all that quick': If editors are banned, that is generally for a prolonged time, generally the minimum is years, some indefinite. I presume that the Arbs when taking away the workload of having to be active in this subcommittee (because none of them would be a member of it), they would have more time on their hands responding to questions, and hence such communication may not be lightning quick, but it will still be in the order of days (which really is significantly shorter than the years-indefinite of most bans) - moreover, if you want it to be so quick, then you would need a significant number of Arbs in this subcommittee, taking into account that some Arbs will sometimes be inactive (if you have one Arb in the subcommittee who is inactive, the communication would still need to go through talkpages or e-mail), which would simply defy the whole principle of having them as independent entities.  E-mail is more than quick enough.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What you're talking about though is a reconsideration process, after a sustained period of absence - and I agree in those cases time is not a massive issue. However BASC should include an appeals process, where a ban might have been incorrectly placed by the community, or even a small portion of the community. In these cases, it might have been very short term, and making the new BASC slower is only going to infuriate or demoralise the subject. I don't see the need for multiple arbs to be on the committee, just that the role is delegated when the "liaison" is inactive. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 09:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If the community put a wrong ban on someone, there is no need for the Arbitration committee to check that - that is the subject of this committee, which would have their own checkusers and admins to investigate the situation. Arbitrators may not have been involved in that ban decision anyway (or maybe they were in their status as editors, but not in their function as Arbitrator).
 * The other way around, if the Arbitration Committee would place a wrong ban on someone, this committee would also have to investigate it, and fast - the Arbitrator who placed the ban would naturally recuse from deciding on the de-ban discussion, in other words, that also does not need Arbitrators in that discussion.
 * In other words, I don't see why there needs to be a liaison in this committee. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also that is totally unnecessary, of course. ArbCom does not need to appoint these editors (or should I say 'ArbCom should not appoint these editors'), that is up to the community.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Pine
I am concerned about the small number of people who are volunteering to serve on BASC. We don't need an army of people on BASC but I would have expected some CUs and more admins to apply. I also would have expected more participants in the comments above. I would like to suggest that Arbcom post notifications of this discussion on the talk pages of all admins and CU/OS functionaries. Additionally or alternatively, since my understanding is that someone is working on getting a sitenotice posted regarding a call for more CU/OS applicants, perhaps the same sitenotice could also ask for BASC applicants. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 20:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Editors who agree with this comment

 * 1) Ban Appeals are not a time-consuming component of ArbCom's work, demanding about an hour per week or fortnight. These subcommittees, and all committee–community working partnerships, only function if there are enough community nominees to make the election (and the whole thing) worthwhile. AGK  [•] 10:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) This RFC could have made it to the arbitration section Signpost--Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about this comment

 * Thanks to Lord Roem for adding this RfC to the centralized discussion template. PhilKnight (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm actually surprised with AGK's comments about workload above; I spend much more time than that looking at block/ban appeals, and I'm only looking at a few of them rather than carrying out in-depth reviews. Risker (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Penyulap
I would like any person to be able to open an appeal on another editors behalf, to be able to present the case for examination in place of the third party. Every time good editors see other good editors wrongfully banned, it causes editor retention problems. If you are 'fighting the good fight' like a platoon of soldiers advancing, and good people are being shot right beside you and thrown out of the game, that has a demoralising effect. Being able to bring and conduct reviews would address this issue properly, especially where the banned user is too incensed to appeal themselves. (When you get punched in the head at someone's house, it is often wisdom not to return, even if there is an apology on offer) Penyulap  ☏  20:33, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Editors who agree with this comment

 * I support Penyulap's comment above. I think what said has got more than a kernel of truth and equanimous rationality behind it. But I know some people will disagree.  Brendon is  here  05:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) --Nouniquenames (talk)

Discussion about this comment

 * Interesting idea. So, just so I'm clear, you're proposing that an editor not involved with the ban - some 'friend' of the banned user - be allowed to organize the appeal to BASC, as if an attorney? If I'm wrong in characterizing your position, please say so. If this is correct though, I have a few questions:<ol><li>How does the appealing (non-involved) editor know the banned user wants to appeal? What if he/she doesn't want to?<li>How does BASC craft conditions for return (i.e. topic-bans in place of site-ban, etc.) with the editor who isn't the one who would actually return? Wouldn't the obligation fall to the appealing friend editor?</ol>Thanks for clarifying, Lord Roem (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a friend at all. This is more about editor retention really, every time you see an innocent person crucified you know you could be next. Of course, if it is your friend, it's doubly troubling, but I was thinking on the wider scale, after all, this IS a community, and cohesion is disrupted by disruptive bans that cannot be addressed. I know it is the American way that someone gets a beating in broad daylight and nobody saw a thing, but this is not a worldwide view.


 * The other thing is, an appeal against an arbcomm or admin ban should have nothing whatsoever to do with the editor who was banned, they should be irrelevant in the process. The ban, and the reasoning behind making the ban is the only thing that should be examined in the kind of appeal I am suggesting. This is a different kind of appeal altogether to an editor making promises to change their ways. They are totally separate issues.


 * one of the most important aspects is that the examination of the original ban should be made by different people. Self-examination is always fraught with problems, and a different view helps widen things out into something closer to the community perspective. Penyulap  ☏  08:30, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)


 * I do agree with your last thought, self-examination can certainly be fraught with problems in a ban appeal. Rational thinking may give way to emotions. It's certainly an idea to think about, thanks for clarifying! -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be good to set something like that up for community/de facto bans. It's already in place for ArbCom bans, which don't usually go through BASC. Instead, they are publicly appealed/reconsidered via the Amendments and Clarifications process, which anyone can request. A word of warning though, unless it is carefully set up it is likely to crumple under its own weight, as socks may well simply create further socks to appeal (or even just for the lulz).  Roger Davies  talk 20:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * An editor can appeal their own ban, so what is the difference. indef bans serve only to produce more convincing socks and multiple parallel accounts by the same editor, the current approach simply throws away the good editors through bad bans that are not easily re-examined though independent means, and throws away more good editors through retention, and throws away widespread enthusiasm for the project. Lack of self examination by the community hurts the community, and the editor. Penyulap   ☏  08:20, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies I think it is important to note that ArbCom (and Jimbo for that matter) will only hear a third party appeal if said third party had standing in the case being appealed. Has this changed? My76Strat (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If I understand, this would support the idea here. This creates a forum for a third party appeal since neither or the two just mentioned will hear it.  --Nouniquenames (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Beeblebrox
I like the idea of expanding BASC to include members of the broader community. However I do not like the idea of any closed body overturning bans imposed by the community at large. It seems that what BASC usually does in such cases is to determine if the appeal has any merit at all, and then open it to community discussion if the deem that it does. I believe that arrangement should be formalized and that BASC should be specifically prohibited from overturning community imposed bans. Anyone banned through an open-to-the-public discussion at ANI or elsewhere should go through the same process to get the ban overturned. I don't believe ArbCom has the power to overturn the community in any other regard except this one, and I do think that in most cases they wouldn't anyway, but it can't hurt to actually say "no, you can't do that" so there is no ambiguity on the subject. When it comes to this level of dispute resolution, ambiguity is almost always a bad thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about this comment

 * Whereas I agree in principle, I would also like to notice that the procedure of community ban is also not very, hmmm, well thought out. For example, I recollect that very recently somebody (whom I do not know) was community banned on basis of seven votes (seven for ban, zero against the ban). In my opinion, this should not have qualified as a community ban. Given that there is a chance that the subcommittee may contain seven or more members, I find it ridiculous that it would in this case no authority to overturn such a ban. I am not sure what the best decision would be - to establish the minimum number of votes for the ban to be ineligible for the subcommittee, or may be just accept it - but I do not find the situation satisfactory.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Expressions of interest
If the Ban Appeals Subcommittee is expanded to include non-arbitrator seats, I would be interested in serving on the subcommittee:


 * 1) I seriously doubt that I'd be selected, as I'm not an admin and am probably never going to be one, but I don't really think that you'd need to be an admin to be on BASC. BASC demands that users make value judgements as to whether a person, if allowed to return, would be a net asset or a net harm to the project.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  23:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I would volunteer. I have seen blocks imposed by administrators that I think are unreasonable, and I have seen blocks imposed by administrators that I think are very reasonable. I think it's important enough for the Wikipedia community that blocks are done as best as possible that I'd volunteer my time to review them. My main limitation, or perhaps benefit, is that I'm not an administrator on EN. I am an administrator on Outreach although that requires far, far less policing than EN does. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉  08:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Question That I should have asked before raising my hand. What is the expected weekly time commitment? I already have a few hats and I want to make sure that I don't end up in a situation where I've over-committed. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 21:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * BASC handles (I think) about 100-120 cases a year. Some can be summarily dismissed; these take little work, just sending a pro forma. Perusing them, and simple discussion with colleagues, probably takes about an hour per case. Taking the lead on a case and doing any background work - looking at edits that triggered the block, reading up on user page, AN or AN/I discussions, checkuser stuff, correspondence with the person appealing, writing up notes and proposals for other committee members, supervising and participating in a public "sounding" about unblocking, and so on - will probably involve anything from two to twenty hours work for the person doing it.  Roger Davies  talk 17:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Roger's figures seem about right. If we say they are roughly a 100 cases a year, and the average amount of time per case is 5 hours, the total workload would be 500 hours. If at any one time, 3 volunteers are active for half an hour a day, this would be more than sufficient. PhilKnight (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I asked since that's about twice as much time I was imagining. I support the expansion of BASC but I don't think it's a good idea for me to make a commitment of that size at this time. Maybe the next time that BASC asks for volunteers, if that happens, I'll be in a better position to volunteer that much time. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 21:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether it matters, but in my view each appeal takes far less than five hours per volunteer. If you mean five hours in total, then even that would seem to me to be an over-generous estimation. Less than one in ten appeals are successful, only around a quarter require extensive communication with the appellant (the result of most is obviously to 'decline'), and the whole process as a rule is not at all time-intensive. AGK  [•] 23:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Unfortunately I do not see a steady stream of volunteers, and, in particular, not a single admin volunteered so far, but somebody has to do this job. I have an extensive past experience of dealing with unblock/unban questions on Russian Wikipedia, and I know it is not really pleasant and in any case not rewarding. My advantage here is that I was not involved in any major conflicts so far, and therefore have no particular prejudice or preformed opinion on possible unban applicants. My experience is that, with the exception of a very limited subset of cases, access to deleted contribution is not essential for making an unban decision, and therefore this technical issue should not prevent non-admins from sitting on the committee. Community trust is of course a different issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, non-admins would have the same investigatory/scrutiny tools as admins and functionaries. (Except they could not block/unblock, or delete/undelete; though they can view deleted content.) To do it any other way would mean a two-tier structure, which seems wrong/impractical to me.  Roger Davies  talk 07:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest a two-tier structure, just merely pointed out the fact that non-admins have no access to deleted contributions.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, if members get CheckUser and Oversight, which they do emphatically need because of the very large numbers of harrassment and sock appeals, then they get access to deleted contributions bundled in. This was arranged following an RFC last year, which gave non-admins all the tools they need to perform their duties properly. Roger Davies  talk 09:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that all of the tasks involve the need for administrative tools (they certainly are handy) - as long as the committee is sufficiently filled with editors, admins and checkusers, all the info can be available, e.g. via controlled mailing lists or a closed wiki especially for this work. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Data most certainly CANNOT be shared in the way you suggest. It would directly breach the WMF privacy policy as well as the laws of Florida etc. Broadly, private data can only be shared with users authorised to see it.  Roger Davies  talk 09:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, where did I say that the editors who are in that committee should not be authorised - you do not have to be an admin to be authorised. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll put my hand up here. A kindly IP pointed me this way a few days ago and I've been sort of mulling it over since then. I've done a lot of work with rehabilitating editors in the past and I feel I'm pretty good at spotting which ones are beyond redemption and what stands a good shot of succeeding. I'd certainly be willing to help out in something like this. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 20:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an important and useful skill. A lot of BASC is about good judgment.  Roger Davies  talk 07:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm putting my hand up here as well (I will honestly try to put some time into this).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) If selected I would give my time to each case (I served on my university's Citation appeal committee) and do my best to not let appeals of block to be delayed. Hasteur (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I will serve in support of this duty if called, abide by commitments in deed, and strive to reflect credit upon our resolve with every manner and stride. If not selected, I will expect no less from those who are! My76Strat (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * By virtue of prior commitments I have realized it best to recant the portion stricken above while reiterating my support for a best outcome here. Thank you. My76Strat (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I have handled unblock requests for some time, and would be willing to serve in this capacity. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I feel I've had my fair share of dealing with and mentoring problematic users in the past, and think I have a decent judgment when it comes to sincere requests to return vs requests from users who are unwilling to adapt their behaviour to our policies. One thing that I think should be considered, however. The Wikimedia Foundation has in the past rejected the notion of non-administrators being able to view deleted contributions, and I'm not sure if that'd change with this. I guess that's a bridge we'd cross if we get to it. Steven   Zhang  Get involved in DR! 11:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that deleted contributions should only be accessed by a restricted group. The sysop group was considered small enough to count as restricted. The addition of a few non-administrators should not change that, especially if they are considered trusted editors. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 11:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wasn't aware of the RFC where the viewdeleted rights were added to the CU bundle. Makes sense I guess. Steven   Zhang  Get involved in DR! 11:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I've done two terms while I was an Arb and I thoroughly enjoyed working on the appeals. I'd be happy to offer my experience. - Mailer Diablo 21:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) It sounds like something in which I'd be interested.  --Nouniquenames (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion from JzG
My concern is with the potential for gaming the system. There are a significant number of people whose mission in life is to waste as much of the community's time as possible. A volunteer group to help banned users to appeal and to assist users back form bans (mentoring) would do more good. In the end the number of bans is small, I see no real evidence that ArbCom is unable to handle the workload, and we have the huge advantage of an impartial and independent review for community banned editors, with an unambiguous closure and no false hope. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)