Wikipedia talk:Appeal Committee


 * Previous relevant discussions: Village pump (proposals)/Archive49, Wikipedia talk:Banning policy/Archive 3, Wikipedia talk:DRV

Superceded by ArbCom
Would an appeals committee have any real teeth if they are superseded by another committee? I question the usefulness in this case. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I can see two ways it could still work. 1) ArbCom merely has right of refusal on an appeal approved by the AppCom (due to ArbCom probably handling more nonpublic data), or 2) someone from ArbCom sits on this committee. → ROUX   ₪  02:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ArbCom is overburdened, they can't consider appeals in a timely manner. It would reduce the workload for ArbCom, and we could give some other powers to this committee that ArbCom doesn't possess, for example to appeal deletions. Also, ArbCom accept appeals for permabans or long bans, but I'm not sure they accept appeals for other sanctions, such as topic bans, in any case, it's not clearly stated and doesn't seem to be common, yet those sanctions are quite common nowadays. I mentioned that communication between the two committees was important, they may have a dedicated mailing list. Since the AppCom would inform the community when they consider appeals at an advanced stage, ArbCom would be informed and could weigh in (and, for 1), state their opposition if any). For 2), I'd prefer to keep the committees independent, but this is an option. Cenarium (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In the United States there is a judicial system with several layers to it. A court at one level isn't considered to be without authority because of the layer of courts above it. That being said, if the Arbitration Committee is the Supreme Court, the Appeal Committee would be the Court of Appeals. (The analogy is not exact, but it is apt in demonstrating that AppCom is high up in the resolution process but beneath the head honchos). Because authority for sanction appeals would be handed down to the AppCom, the ArbCom could refuse to handle an appeals case just because it does not have to, just as how the US Supreme Court opts to refuse cases if it feels that the lower layers of the court system handled it most appropriately. The ArbCom reserving the right to hear an appeal of an AppCom decision if it chooses is like the Supreme Court hearing an appeal of an appellate court because the issue is of enough national or constitutional importance. This way, ArbCom would restrict its activity to doing what it is supposed to do: handle only the most important of cases. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 04:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think laying Wikipedia out with the US legal system as an analogy quite works. I, personally, would be in favour of having a body that could review another body's decisions without the other body being able to override it. If there's going to be a point to an appeals committee, it needs to be able to review any decision and it needs to be able to see all the information that the people who made the first decision saw. Irbisgreif (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Nonpublic data
I am concerned about giving more people access to nonpublic data. Leaks do happen, and more people with access means more potential for leaks. Would it not be possible to have an ArbCom member sit on this committee with the ability to say "No, this user cannot be unblocked due to [insert generalised explanation of private knowledge)", with someone like Cary or Godwin being able to independently confirm? → ROUX   ₪  02:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In the discussion here, Durova suggested having at least one Checkuser and possibly trusted retired Arbitrators. I think the access to nonpublic data-personnel will grow no matter what we do over the years, but I think here, the negatives for allowing a limited number of committee members (if we decide not to go with old Arbs at all) access to nonpublic information (perhaps not the entire committee, just a few members of it) would be outweighed by the benefits. NW ( Talk ) 02:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To make a decision, the whole appeal committee may need access to some nonpublic data, such as checkuser data, oversighted material, or other kind of private evidence. We should be on the safe side and require that all members meet the requirements, which implies they have to identify to the WMF. They may also have access to shared private mailing lists, such as the committee-l if created, maybe functionaries-l (to be considered when the committee will be firmly established). In any case, the diffusion of private material should always be kept minimal. With respect to ArbCom intervention, they could privately contact the Appeal Committee through the shared mailing list. Cenarium (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if we should fill the committee up with a load of people who are already trusted with private information. So, for example, along with all the precautions already mentioned, there would be people who already have checkuser, oversight, etc. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's something I thought of, either we do like ArbCom, as soon as you're elected, you can have CU and OS permissions as you see fit, or you must already have served as functionary. It will depend on the finality of this committee, which may vary depending on the proposal. Cenarium (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Solution looking for a problem?
Having looked at the discussions briefly, I'm unonvinced this is meets any real need for this. AN/ANI seem an adequate place for discussions which move beyond specific venues, and this, if approved would simply be one more place for drama to be sought by those with a stomach for such things, and overlooked by those who might be adversely affected by the outcomes. Jclemens (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This committee already exists, though. The proposal is to remove it from ArbCom's purview--which makes all sorts of sense; their remit is to adjudicate disputes only. The other functions have sort of accreted to them over time. (As an aside, 'Arbitration' is a misnomer; they do not arbitrate anything, they hear evidence and enact judgements.) → ROUX   ₪  02:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict with Roux) There is no place to appeal an arbitration ban besides appealing to the same people who banned you (Jimbo never uses his veto; he won't do anything). A community unban proposal on ANI is automatic drama. At least this way, there can be a structured discussion with a clear set of people who will try to come to a fair decision – unlike ANI, which has a reputation as a hangout for the same crowd of people who love drama.
 * As for the "overlooked by those who might be adversely affected by the outcomes", that's no different than the current system, where Arbcom doesn't even have to inform the community of an unban proposal and doesn't have to solicit evidence. At least this way, the people who might be negatively impacted or neutral parties with information to contribute have the opportunity to speak out against an unban proposal. NW ( Talk ) 02:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (double e/c) AN/ANI: there is no better place for drama than those, and there is almost never a consensus at the end of appeal discussions. The point of a committee is precisely that it won't attract so much drama since discussions are private and among users trusted by the community to make those decisions. Cenarium (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It moves things from ArbCom and AN/I to a small, dedicated body that can hopefully cut out some of the dramah that comes with any community block or ban. At the same time it relieves the burden on ArbCom, who I'm given the impression have a constantly backlogged appeals committee. Ironholds (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And, of course, such a process, like AdminReview (if it ever gets off the ground), would prove its use by being called on increasingly rarely. The existence of a half-way decent process would itself be a mediating factor in fostering productive, harmonious relations between non-admins and admins. Tony   (talk)  13:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying that there's no place to appeal an ArbCom ruling is like saying there's no place to appeal a Supreme Court decision. So what?  Ultimmately, there must always be a court of final resort, and we would be better served by focusing on more effective pre-ArbCom tools than adding another layer on top of them. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not on top of them, it's a 'lower court', see Appeal_Committee. This is a pre-arbitration tool. Cenarium (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I personally don't see how the appeal committee will overrule ArbCom. If anything, it explicitly says the opposite. I do agree with there needing to be a "court of last resorts", though.

I also agree with the principle that we have simply grown too big and too well-known to let such an important decision be made by just anybody. I think we need a small-to-middling group, well trusted by the Wikipedian community, to make such appeal decisions. It makes sense to get this further from under ArbCom. As Wikipedia grows, so will the need for ArbCom, and they need all the help they can get! I dream of horses (T) @ 19:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Reinventing the wheel?
Other than the makeup of the committee what's the difference between this and User:Tony1/AdminReview? Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any strong relation, AppCom does nothing but consider decreasing the severity or lifting sanctions, it's not going after the admins or the segment of the community who imposed it (e.g. for community bans). It's similar to an appeal court, it appeals sanctions, but it has no business in pursuing those who made the sanction in the first place. If there's really a major dispute on an admin action, it should be brought to ArbCom, which has the jurisdiction for dealing with this. Also, they should probably not accept to consider appeals before a reasonable time after the action (so not before any dispute has deescalated). Cenarium (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No one intends to "go after" admins in the AdminReview process. However, what AdminReview has that this process doesn't is a detailed procedure (which may need expressing more simply, granted), and a sizeable proportion of non-admins involved, which I believe is critical to gaining community confidence in a process such as this. The Appeal Committee also seems to be rather narrow in scope. Has ArbCom endorsed it? Will it be news to the arbs? Tony   (talk)  13:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't really see AdminReview as going after admins or I would not have contributed to it. The problem then is that instead of everybody getting to chime in on what they think admin has done wrong (WP:ANI, etc) it will be a small group that does it. The process will not gain the trust of editors when it is a closed group composed of arbitrators, checkusers and admins. Just curious but where in Dispute resolution would this lie? Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above that the committee should not be exclusively composed of admins. What does this proposal offer that Tony's AdminReview or existing community discussion mechanisms don't? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know AdminReview well, if it's an informal process, there should be no crossovers, but what I mean is that the Appeal Committee would have only appellate jurisdiction, and no original jurisdiction. Again, they wouldn't appeal only blocks or admin sanctions, but community-imposed sanctions as well, and whatever we want to allow them to appeal. The procedure is not detailed yet, but there would be a public page for appeals, discussion among members would be mostly off-wiki (to avoid drama, and in case of discussion of private material), and the community would be informed when privately-heard appeals would be considered at an advanced stage (so they could chime in). There is no restriction on the membership, except meeting the access to nonpublic data requirements, and some users meet those while not being admins (e.g., OTRS members), so it's only a matter of being elected, which, granted, may be difficult when you're not an admin (like for ArbCom). But ArbCom already routinely consider appeals, for the most severe sanctions, with private requests, except they don't have to inform the community before granting an appeal, so it's just a transfer of responsibility, not a new one. The Appeal Committee would not 'rule' on whether the admin did it right or not, but on whether decreasing or lifting the sanction is appropriate, which is fundamentally different. In dispute resolution, it would be the step just before arbitration for appeals. ArbCom has been informed, but I don't think their endorsement is required, but certainly desirable, since, to be functional, they would have to formally allow the appeal committee to overturn sanctions done under AE, since this motion is still in effect, and accept to transfer the responsibility to appeal bans (they could still consider appeals, but as cases). As for what we gain, it's a more efficient appeal process, appeal discussions on-wiki are most often paralyzed with drama and fail to achieve consensus (and often when an admin lifts the block on its own, it generates even more drama). It would probably allow to limit disputes over admin actions. As for the scope, we can extend it as we see fit, for example by allowing them to appeal deletions in some way. Cenarium (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Request process
How will the request process work? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 15:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Either by posting to a public request page or by sending an email to the appeal committee mailing list (when the user is blocked, some nonpublic information is involved, or there are other reasons to request privately). Cenarium (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So it's going to be similar to how the Arbitration Committee handles their requests? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 16:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. The precise process is yet to be determined. Cenarium (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 01:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, great
Just another venue for further DRAHMAZ. If this ever comes to a !vote, I will strongly oppose. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not an additional location so much as it takes existing drama and shuffles it around so that it has a different address. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 01:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, it should reduce drama by limiting endless disputes on the appropriateness of a sanction generating massive drama but not a shred of consensus, by giving the final decision to a committee. Anyway, ArbCom already does this with the ban appeals subcommittee, but it's not well-known and they are overburdened so can't do it efficiently enough. Cenarium (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So, we get DRAMAHZ on the RfAr page, that goes no for weeks, nay months, until the ArbCom finally resolves it, only to have the exact same DRAMAHZ start up all over again on this committee. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, as this is intended as a pre-arbitration measure (see in particular section Relations with the Arbitration Committee and the Audit Committee), it doesn't appeal arbcom decisions. It's a step prior to arbitration. ArbCom is concerned with the most serious cases, the appeal committee would be concerned with less serious, more regular cases, like harej suggests. Cenarium (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No more committees
The RfC pointed me to the project space. Where do I make it known that I feel we have too many damn committees and working groups and what-not already? Also candy is too sweet these days and kids need to pull their pants up. Protonk (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This committee already exists, in fact, as a sub of ArbCom. Since the ArbCom remit is dispute resolution, and they have inidcated they wish to stick within that narrow scope, it makes sense to hive this off. → ROUX   ₪  07:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking this proposal is quite a lot broader than the ban appeal subcommittee, which only hears appeals of lengthy bans, and usually private information or negotiation is required before a ban is overturned. Also the appeal is sent to Arbcom, and the unban is performed by ArbCom, based on the recommendations of BASC.  If BASC cant make up its mind, the case must be voted on by all of Arbcom.
 * Often the ban being appealed is the result of a dispute, and the private negotiations with the banned person are intended to find an alternative resolution to the dispute which allows the banned person to be unbanned - i.e. we look to impose topic bans or behavioral restrictions which will allow the community to accept the person back under strict probation, which can be enforced at WP:AE.
 * I have no objection to the ban appeal process being restructured, but I am less confident about a broader scope for an appeal committee.
 * People who are topic banned do have a voice within the community, and can "prove themselves" in order to have their topic bans reviewed by their peers. Arbcom deals with people who don't have a voice in the community.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 04:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Broadly agree with John Vandenberg. Will try to comment in more depth later. Carcharoth (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Protonk. If it's a community ban, the community should be the one to lift it, not some select group of appeals court judges. That can be done at ANI or through an RFC. if ArbCom bans someone, let them hear their appeal as they do now. Looks like more bureaucracy with little to no benefit or improvement over processes already in place. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

the wrong problem
We already have a way of appealing bans, and article deletions. What we do not have is a way of settling disputes about content. DGG (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the intention is to reduce the workload for ArbCom as mentioned in the proposal. I believe that the community is able to handle such a task effectively. I still haven't looked at the details but I personally and generally appreciate the idea and support it. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 13:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This "idea"? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am talking about that idea. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 23:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 23:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Scope
This could be useful because;
 * 1) Admins are reluctant to overturn, modify or withdraw other admin's sanctions.
 * 2) It can cause wiki-drama
 * 3) I could be seen as wheeling
 * 4) It is usually TLDR - who wants to trawl through pages of posts and diffs when someone else might be doing he same thing?
 * 5) There may be cases when non-public information is needed.
 * 6) There are many sanctions short of bans which can be modified or reduced.
 * 7) * In the "good ol' days" the number of sanctioned users who weren't banned or at least blocked was miniscule. Now it must be quite high.
 * 8) * Many of the sanctions are effectively just enjoinders to follow some specific policy.
 * 9) * Some sanctions aren't thought out and can be modified easily to become workable. Some almost prevent themselves being discussed at AN/I. (See current case proposed for ArbCom.)

I think this is a promising idea, althoguh I dislike committee proliferation.
 * Rich Farmbrough, 18:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC).


 * I'm going to shamelessly jump on this bandwagon. When two forthright admins get caught in disagreement, the drama is like a high-power tornado.  Entertaining to watch, not so much for those caught up in it.  Also, endorsements seem easy to come by at WP:AN, and a dissenting admin reluctant to overturn another's actions is even less likely to do so if they see their "opponent's" position has been endorsed independently.  At the same time, I'm concerned that this would be a committee for the sake of having one.  It would also run the risk of seeming like admins are going to be put on trial for what may otherwise be trivial actions, coming across as judgmental, an outlet for laying blame and finding fault, which would be a Bad Thing[TM].  81.110.104.91 (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A reform of dispute resolution final steps
I'm working on a more profound reform for dispute resolution final steps and I'll propose it in some times, shortly as a draft (although I soon won't be available for several days again). Cenarium (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Now available at User:Cenarium/DR, comments welcome. User:Cenarium/AR is also of interest. Cenarium (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Too soon to tell?
Until April of this year, e-mailed requests from banned or long-term blocked users were sent to the ArbCom general mailing list. Especially before we introduced the Coordinating Arbitrator position in January, there was a sense that too often these requests did not receive timely attention given the press of other business, and some may not have been responded to at all.

After discussion of how to solve this problem, we created the Ban Appeals Subcommittee in April. As has been noted, the subcommittee consists of three arbitrators, and the positions are rotated so that all interested arbitrators have a chance to serve.

Although the system still isn't perfect, I believe that these appeals are now receiving much more timely and diligent attention. If this is the case, then I don't see the need for the new committee outside ArbCom that this page proposes to create. On the other hand, if the problems with the old system were to recur, then a committee like this might be a good solution.

Hence, my suggestion is that this proposal be withdrawn or not implemented (I hate the harshness of "rejected") at this time, but it can be brought back up if the ban appeals are piling up again in a few months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The proposal in its current form is a draft, and could be substantially changed. In any case, the purview of the Appeal Committee would be much larger than that of the Ban appeal subcommittee. I'm working on a reform of the final steps in dispute resolution at User:Cenarium/DR which would involve an Appeal Committee, though substantially different than the one proposed here. Cenarium (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I get feeling I'm missing something here. The proposal essentially says "ArbCom isn't doing one of their jobs efficiently enough so lets take it away from them". Is Newyorkbrad representative of the feeling of ArbCom as a whole? If so, I suggest we give them time to resolve their issues and, in the meantime, organise some way of objectively monitoring the problem. If it's still a problem when the next ArbCom elections come round, lets raise it with the candidates then and get a solution - which could be, for instance, ArbCom appointed non-Arbs to the Bans subcommittee. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)