Wikipedia talk:Devolution

Front matter
Okay, none of this is set in stone except the idea that there needs to be a formal transfer/delegation of power, even if limited, from the Committee to members of the community. Could I ask that we not have any polls/votes for at least the first few days? Mackensen (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a minor point, but might I suggest renaming this "Delegation of Arbcom powers" or something similar? The title Wikipedia:Devolution actually made me expect an essay on how we are devolving into madness, or some such. But maybe that's just me. Dragons flight (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Who says we aren't? On a more serious note, I'm trying to make a broader point about the need for decentralization, while at the same time emphasizing that power is devolving from a central source. Mackensen (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Which is in itself an interesting point. Though the God-King may be absolute, much of policy and practice on Wikipedia was developed from the bottom-up by the community, and some of what is being discussed here obviously overlaps.  For example, administrative actions have always been reviewable by the admin community at large, without need to invoke delegation.  In that sense, I'm not sure emphasizing top-down administration even makes sense.  However, relying on ANI to solve our problems is obviously dysfunctional.  That said, I think it might be more desirable to craft an intermediate structure that extends the traditional review capacity of the admin community at large but adds a definitive decision making process.  For example, an administrative review board could be constructed as an adhoc committee of administrators provided that we could agree that reviews had limited time periods, formulated results in a straight foward way, and that decisions explicitly endorsed by a majority of reviewers cannot be overturned by individual admins.  Dragons flight (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The system breaks down when consensus isn't obvious--or doesn't exist at all. It's those situations I had in mind here. I'm fairly sure the proposal provides for appeal to Arbcom alone. Mackensen (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dragon's flight that the decisions of the ARB should not be overturned by individual admins; which should be achievable if this proposal is adopted with broad consensus and if the ARB's actions are transparent. I'm also thinking that not a lot of cases will come here.  ANI frequently sees complaints from this or that editor where two or three people look at it and say, good block or whatever, and that;s the end of it.  The ARB would handle cases where the solution is not obvious, the action controversial, and discussion at ANI likely to go nowhere. Thatcher 03:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

A more formal way to review indef blocks/bans than AN/I (but less formal than an appeal to ArbCom) seems like it would be a good thing to have, given current scaling issues. AN/I reviews consume incredible amounts of effort per block reviewed, and produce fair amounts of drama (c.f. when is a block a ban, for example), as well as challenges about what exactly got decided... This seems to have merit. It would be good to see it trialled. ++Lar: t/c 04:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I confess I'm a bit concerned by the line "All appeals of indefinite blocks or bans must be made to the Arbitration Committee." That may be a bit heftier than what many have in mind? – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is currently policy that users who are indef banned must appeal to Arbcom.  Admins may post bans on ANI etc., but the banned user usually has no voice there.  Or if a user who was indef banned 6 months ago wants to come back.  And they get so many requests that they have admitted that they do a poor job of addressing them. Thatcher 12:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Only if the ban was imposed by arbcom. Viridae Talk 12:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, all indef bans. They are sometimes discussed by the community (cf Moulton, Ian Tresman, etc) but ultimately if the banned user's appeal to the community is rejected they have the right to a final appeal to Arbcom. Thatcher 13:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Risker
I think it would be worthwhile to add "other sanctions imposed by an administrator, absent reference to a specific Arbitration case" to the Administrative review section. I've been seeing more and more of this, and there is not an effective method of review for such unilateral actions at this point.

It seems a little odd to call the group reviewing bans the Block review board, and then allocate responsibility for reviewing blocks to the Administrative review board. I might be more inclined to have the BRB handle blocks only (including indefinite blocks), and the ARB handle bans, page protections, and other sanctions.

I think this has real potential; I like what I see, and will think on it further. Risker (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the issues in reviewing a controversial admin's action are different than in considering the appeal of a banned/indef blocked user. I think it makes sense to keep them separate, although the naming could be tweaked of course. Thatcher 02:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice tweaking, Thatcher, the update is much more clear in the delineation of responsibilities for the two boards. A noticeboard seems appropriate for the ARB, although it would be difficult for blocked users to post there so an alternate contact method might be required. Perhaps a line needs to be added to clarify that this will not supplant the current process of block review in response to the posting of an  template.
 * Consider the use of the word "panel" instead of "board", which would turn the acronyms into BRP and ARP - to prevent confusion with 1/ Arbcom and 2/(foundation) board of directors. (The same suggestion applies to the other "boards" being proposed recently by Arbcom.) Risker (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I like boards, but I agree it is potentially confusing. Thatcher 04:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What I suppose we could call "jurisdiction" is at least partially resolved by the manner in which cases are referred to the proposed groups. It looks confusing in theory, but I believe the practice will makes things far more clear. At least as it's currently proposed: with the IRP, cases are referred by arbcom for a recommendation before the committee itself decides; with the ARP, review is requested by the community for a decision. One group is directly accessible by the community, where the other is not. In the event of a conflict, ARP decisions can be appealed to arbcom, which can in turn ask the IRP for advice. Doesn't sound too bad. – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

New watchmen
Who watches the watchmen? That's what I want to know. I don't really have an opinion one way or the other, but doesn't having an ARB or IRB that can keep the Arbitration committee in check just move the problem further down the line? What's to stop a new body from abusing its power? Who keeps the ARB or IRB in check? To be honest, I'm not really bothered either way what happens here, I just thought I'd mention that philosophical point. Deamon138 (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * These panels are not "to keep the Arbitration committee in check". They would be created so that the Arbcom could delegate some of its workload.  We say, "Arbcom is the last appeal for banned users" which is fine when there are 5 banned users, but when there are 500 banned users all clamoring for attention, the concept does not scale.  Arbcom would retain final jurisdiction over both panels can overrule them or dismiss their members.  The goal of the IRB is to get timely attention to the appeals of banned users which frequently get lost in the mix.  The goal of the ARB is to provide a calm forum to review controversial admin decisions since controversial cases never really get solved at ANI when its a bunch of entrenched interests yelling at each other.  And the operation of both panels is to be as transparent as possible. Thatcher 04:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This proposal is designed, I would say, to help arbcom scale; accountability is neither here nor there, with regards to that. – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct. Arbcom is still held accountable via annual elections; this isn't designed to create a new accountability process, although having additional sets of eyes should be helpful. That's the same reason for non-consecutive six-month terms--keep people rotating on and off on a regular basis. Mackensen (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay guys, sorry for the misunderstanding! Deamon138 (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sensitive appeals
Appeals that involve information derived from Checkuser and OTRS will only be handled by panel members who are eligible under the Access to nonpublic data policy.

Is this a good idea? Any such appeal would inevitably be in camera, and if it all possible I think panels would work best when things are carried out in public. We'd wind up having two classes of panelists. Granted, it would be up to Arbcom whether to hand down the appeal for review in the first place. Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we have to respect Foundation policy with respect to OTRS and Checkuser. Before you can access non-public info, you have to identify yourself to the Foundation and be over 18.  If an appeal involves checkuser data, the data itself could only be shared with other checkusers, unless arbcom makes an exception for the reviewers, but even then they would have to comply with the Foundation policy.  If the appeal involves OTRS mail, it could not be shared with reviewers who were not on OTRS, unless they identified themselves under policy or unless the sender waived their right to privacy for purposes of the review. The alternative to having a subcommittee with higher access is to say that reviews involving non-public data are non-delegable unless the appellant waives their rights under the privacy policy.  (It may be possible for checkusers or OTRS people to summarize the information for the panel, but if the panelists want to see the actual data for themselves, they either need to be granted access or the editors in question need to waive their expectation of privacy.) Thatcher 03:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that OTRS members do not have to be eligible under the access to nonpublic data policy; however, I do believe that they should be either eligible under that policy or members of OTRS. Ral315 (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

some really good ideas
thanks to all involved with this thus far - I think this page has some really good ideas, and hopefully might represent the silver lining to clouds gathering elsewhere. Whilst the nitty-gritty is important, and will no doubt be tuned and tweaked, for me the central value lies in creating a body of x people (I'd say 50 or so actually - a few more than currently proposed), who form panels of y (I'd say 5 - at the top end of the current proposal) to consider issues. To be honest, I'd have the remit of such panels as quite wide ranging, with perhaps an intentionally fuzzy mission statement ("the role of the panel is to make binding decisions aimed at sorting things out"?).

For me it's also absolutely vital that whatever could possibly be discussed 'on-wiki' is. One of the greatest strengths of such an approach is that it will enable us to analyse competencies, and allow the evolution of 'best practice' (which is in my view a fundamental flaw of the current arbcom - it simply doesn't allow enough inputs to foster evolution). We'll get to see who's good on panels, in what roles, and what approaches actually solve more difficult problems - it's the wiki way!

I'll keep an eye on how this goes in the next few days / weeks, but will hold off editing as furiously as I'm tempted too while the dust all around settles a little... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC) it might even be worth mentioning, Kim style, that if this system works well, there might not be much left for arbcom to do! ;-)

Strong support for this proposal
This proposal is inline with my own personal views of how ArbCom should be reformed. I applaud it! Bstone (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice theory; no motivation
To comment personally on the admin review panel.

Short version: Please leave me alone, I'm doing fine as an admin and learning from my mistakes as I go.

Long version: This is a meddlesome proposal. It creates a class of uber-admins possessed of an authority to countermand any unter-admins' actions, and those unter-admins may not likewise countermand. It seems to fail to understand the distributed nature of adminning at a pretty basic level. Very rarely do administrative actions that are bad get allowed to stand because there are a large number of admins (and editors) watching. The watchers watch the watchers, if you like. Protections can be 'reviewed' at RfPP or talk pages (and they are; why is there a proposal to overrule admins on an action that is rarely even controversial?). Deletions are handled by WP:DRV which, for all the upset expressed there gets things right most of the time. Blocks are handled by AN(/I) and, where laziness occurs an arbitration case has often followed. If this decentralisation were to proceed, then the block-review board (the BLORB?) would take up these rare cases. Basically, this admin review panel would be invited to execute, and be unable to resist, inquisitions into every-day adminning which is already adequately controlled by sets of admins and the larger corps at the noticeboards. It invites meddlesome reversals of processes which aren't even often in dispute, it demotes the vast majority of admins to those that must effectively seek permission from their superiors and it creates an 'other parent' which will find it impossible to resist dispensing its authority on a regular basis; it will humiliate many admins as it does so and discredit the collective in the process.

Finally, I would observe that, in fact, the proposal is misnamed and misplaced. The items listed are not presently centralised to the committee, save for the trickiest indef-block reviews. They are dealt with distributedly by the admins, editors and peer-pressure. This proposal in fact centralises the process (the lot of them) to a body that doesn't even exist at present! Splash - tk 09:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Naturally if you think the present system functions fine in all instances there's nothing for you in this proposal. I would however disagree on your second point--the proposal is neither misnamed nor misplaced. The primary motivator here is the delegation of block review by arbcom (a power it possess). There are two proposals and they're not intertwined. The second proposal does not fundamentally alter the power structure; the community retains full control. I doubt editorial actions would fall under any panel's purview; adequate (existing, anyway) processes exist there.
 * Yes, one proposal is designed to interfere with bans; the other is designed to interfere with everything else! Splash - tk 13:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also note that it seems counter-intuitive that a body which, according to you, already handles things just fine would elect a corpus which would proceed to run rampant and screw everything up. I for one don't envision an interventionist panel so much as a safety valve. Mackensen (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A safety valve for what, though? The other safety valves? A core/corps of administrators we actually trust, to keep in check those we don't?
 * As an example of interventionism already live is WP:DRV. It is designed to intervene - it has to correct wrong outcomes. DRV largely endorses matters brought to it. It is not, though, at all afraid to intervene in a decision - and (too) often relists the debate (it should just overturn if the decision was wrong, imo). Two things from this: (i) it's not clear to me why there should be a super-DRV able to overrule DRV; and (ii) it intervenes regularly in matters brought to it, even though it mainly endorses. It seems reasonable to suppose that the panel would behave similarly. A body set up specifically to correct admin actions on the entire canvass is a serious devaluation of the strength of all admins' decisions. Splash - tk 13:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't have DRV in mind when I envisioned the second panel, nor do I think it should usurp it. Broadly speaking, I had in mind blocks and page-specific sanctions; things which are reviewed either at noticeboard or via arbitration. Noticeboards don't scale and arbitration by its very nature either does nothing at all or does too much. I feel obliged to point out at this stage that the proposal enumerates the scope of the panel, and does not mention deletion at all. Mackensen (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment in Support

 * 1) In general I like these ideas, and in combination with some of the suggestions at the arbcom rfc, might allow for both less stress, and better focus throughout the dispute resolution, process.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Jury duty
I wonder if others have read the various suggestions mooted around and about concerning the possibilities of creating a 'jury' system for voting on sanctions. Here's an idea which I think has some merit, and could be worth discussing in this context;

Panels are setup per this proposal, with the roles as described, however they are only authorised to prepare a series of sanctions (editor is topic banned, admin is admonished etc.) - some sort of system (easily technically implementable I'm told...) selects x admins from the entire pool (12 good men and true?) and they are required, by policy, to respond within 7 days with questions, or votes on the sanctions suggested.,

There are many straight forward ways of dealing with absent admins (just select another, basically?!) and I think this concept of separation - tasking trusted, experienced editors to 'make a case' (ask questions, sift evidence, suggest ways forward) and independent admins to make the binding decisions could be a good one. Hopefully it encourages collaboration, sharing of best practice, community investment in smooth relationships etc. etc. thoughts most welcome... if there's some appetite for a bit of a write up (maybe on a sub page?), I'm happy to give it a go.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is sounds mostly like a pretty good idea to me. One small critique: you shouldn't force people to do the jury duty and make them respond as policy. What would you do if they didn't comply? Ban them? The whole point of Wikipedia is that it is free to use, and as long as everything is NPOV, that should include editing too. Deamon138 (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * yeah - I think there'd be a sensible way of facilitating a kind of focused effort that most admins currently active would be prepared to help with - it's a detail which would need sorting out, but isn't central to the concept at this point, I reckon.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A volunteer jury pool might be a good idea. If one isn't available, just go to the next. Bstone (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The jury idea scares me. Reminds me of those mod points on Slashdot. -Jenny 03:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they would better be descibed as 'panels,' and have a rolling membership limited to those selected at random and indicating a willingness to conscientiously help out. The number of panelists and length of service needs to be tweaked for 'efficiency' based on experience - between 8 and 15 panelists seems a good strting point. Panels should have access to the archive etc. and help from an experienced knowledgable facilitator. Bug-free coordination and archiving software should be available --luke (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The two proposed review panels
I like the sound of both the Indefinite Ban Review Panel and the Administrative Action Review Panel. I see them more as substitutes for that awful mess on WP:ANI. I'm not sure what it has to do with arbcom, except that one might hope that it will syphon up some work that might otherwise reach them sooner or later.

One reason I think this will be an improvement is because the community is so large. We do still have some really good people around, but the community is so large that they can be difficult to spot when you're surrounded by, well, people who don't really know much about Wikipedia and don't care either. Having panels would help a lot. --Jenny 03:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think less than siphoning things up to the arbcom it will allow things to be resolved that are not possible through the an/ani/ircadmin system currently. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Both review panels are excellent ideas and I applaud them. In addition, I think this proposal might want to join with WP:OmbCom and make them all official. Bstone (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Going forward
Okay, this is a shout-out to the policy wonks who've looked at this. It seems to me that the two proposed panels have different paths to adoption. The first, for bans, needs only the Arbitration Committee's imprimatur and implement is largely up to them anyway. The arbs know about this proposal but I think they're somewhat occupied at the moment. Nudging may be called for.

The second proposal requires more eyes, I think. Maybe exposure on WP:CENT; I don't know that it's ready for prime-time. Mackensen (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is ready enough, and I have mentioned it on the WT:OMBCOM page. Nudge, nudge.  Risker (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I support these proposals. I believe it's time to put it out to the community. Bstone (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom is aware
ArbCom is aware of this proposal. The Committee was already discussing several models for reviewing bans and admin actions prior to this one. At present, our internal discussions have focused on the best way to divide up the review work. More comments or suggested modifications will be useful. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is to say that ArbCom was considering making new policy from whole cloth, and will have been saved from doing so in the nick of time if this thing succeeds. I do also rather wish the committee and its members would stop bandying around what amount to appeals to authority. People get so very carried away with them. I think you should probably get along back to crafting your explanations to the community for the recent whoops-a-daisies. Splash - tk 22:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this meant to be helpful to this discussion? Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. It reminds people more explicitly of the path that is being taken here: policy by muscle. I think that's helpful to bear in mind when trying to discuss it. Splash - tk 22:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon. This proposal has sat around for some time. It has been advertised to the community in the appropriate forums. I've done what I can to bring to the attention of a wider audience. I'm not surprised that the committee has considered such an idea, because I first floated the notion towards the end of my term. At the time I was deeply concerned about the ban appeals that went unanswered; I got together with Thatcher (possibly Lar as well, I don't recall) and he drew up the first version, still linked from the main page. I don't see any muscling here. Mackensen (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A sitting arbitrator comes along, uses the commitee's name, and implies more-or-less directly that on the committee's authority (they haven't invited the community to their discussion, after all) this is where they plan to decree that we shall go. There is a very obvious fait accompli in the 3rd sentence of FloNight's note. That's muscling. (So: the committee is muscling its way; not you personally). Splash - tk 22:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd encourage the committee to wait for consensus to form on this; I would be surprised if anything else happened. Lethargy alone is in our favor here. Whether the committee needs to ask before delegating a non-executive function is an interesting and unresolved question. The only precedent I know of is the institution of Clerks, which went down like a load of bricks but has turned out to be a net positive. Mackensen (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And really, a comment like this? Mackensen (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, you're taking it personally, I think; 'someone' wasn't you necessarily, just 'anyone'. Maybe a better summary would have been just "this probably won't last". (I rather expected to spiked on the irony of it, actually). Splash - tk 22:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I do feel like I've stuck my neck out here ;) (and, I noticed the change right after your comment to Flo). The more discussion (and opposition) the better. I think the former panel is a trivial change; the second potentially not. Mackensen (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

General unease at the idea

 * At some point we say enough is enough. The ArbCom is supposed to be the "high court" of WP. I think Arbcom was set up very carefully, due to the large cluestick it wields, and I'm uncomfortable with delegating its bat to anyone not elected through the normal Arbcom process.  If Arbcom is backlogged then vote in more members.  If the overall membership of Arbcom wants to create "committees" (for lack of a better term) so that one group of Arbcom members handle block appeals, and another group handle failed mediation, that would be fine with me.  I'll draw two parallels.  First, the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't delegate its authority to U.S. Appellate courts when they get a large case backlog, they just refuse to hear more cases.  Second, the U.S. Congress allows committees some level of exclusive decision making power, but the members of those committees are all elected representatives.  They don't let paiges or staffers vote on bills.  My 2 cents.  Livitup (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There were many proposals at the request for comment regarding expanding the size of tranches. The one that I supported increased tranche size from five to seven and introduced Tranche Delta, via a gradual process. I don't know why nothing like this was out forward as a serious proposal - hell, it might still be in the December elections. I'm not sure how to put the idea forward though. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 13:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Second random thought. How does this fit in with WP:OMBCOM?  Livitup (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The difficulty with expanding ArbCom is that you actually increase the number of people needed to make a decision. I can tell you that this doesn't work, and that the community won't accept a minority speaking on Arbcom's behalf unless it's clear that they have the authority to do so. Again, in the first proposal, executive authority remains with Arbcom, just the research is delegated.
 * On your second thought, the proposed bodies here have enumerated powers, a defined scope, and a limited membership. It is clear, for better or for worse, how they are constituted, to whom they are responsible, and what they are meant to do. It's unclear to me, from reading over OMBCOM, how it would "fit" with our other institutions. Mackensen (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd also throw in here that Arbcom has been delegating authority on a regular basis for some time. Almost every decision involves at least one remedy that "any uninvolved administrator may" apply various sanctions involving individual editors, groups of editors, and in many cases articles and groups of articles. The guidelines for the administrative actions are generally quite loose, and the actions taken under the aegis of these remedies have ranged from warnings through blocks of various length, to locking down articles and banning editors from specific pages and/or topics temporarily or indefinitely. This process gives a structure to review administrative actions taken under these broad guidelines on a case-by-case basis, without tying up the entire committee to do the legwork. The group reviewing the administrative actions not involving an Arbcom decision that are taken by individual administrators provides a more effective method of dispute resolution than the RFC/U (admin) process does now, in that it is specific and time-limited, and has a definite decision point. Risker (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on these comments most of my unease is...well...eased. However, "just the research is delegated" is at odds with " or possibly to act on the Committee's behalf directly" (from the first board's proposal).  Strike that line and I'm A–O.K.  I'm a bit more murky on the second board, as its scope isn't very well defined yet (at least to me) in the proposal.  If this group is also acting as an advisory board to ArbCom then that's no problem.  But if this board is delegated authority of the ArbCom then I think it goes against the original spirit and intent of how ArbCom was set up.  I think I can sum up my remaining unease with this: Are these boards going to have the authority to "impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes"?  If not, then I'm cool.  The answer to this question is not plainly obvious to me no matter how many times I read the proposal. Livitup (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The ARP
I like the idea, and it sounds good, except one thing. The membership.

Whether there are 30, 50, or 500 members, what is really needed for this is moderators of the discussion.

(I also am concerned at the suggested designation of "senior editor".)

So how about this:

All adminstrators comprise the review committee. They may join in the review or not, at their discretion.

Moderators (perhaps bureaucrats, perhaps arbitrators, perhaps a few specific admins elected by the community - doesn't matter at this stage how they're determined) would help guide the discussion to stay positive, to finallise findings, and to "hopefully" close in a timely manner.

All other editors may contribute to the discussion, though only on an appropriate talk page.

Concerns? - jc37 00:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I really like the idea of involving editors who have been here for some time but are not administrators. They bring a different perspective to the table. Since each discussion would be managed by just a few members of the panel, I am not sure that a moderator is required; we don't, for example, have moderators for Arbcom cases and they seem to operate relatively smoothly with the knowledge that if someone truly gets out of hand, a clerk, arbitrator, or another member of the community will take them aside. Risker (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ...will take them aside. - Hence, such a person is a "moderator".
 * This really comes down do the "format" of the review process.
 * I'd like the "review" to be as open as possible (with the understanding that privacy issues may over-rule transparency at times); with every editor allowed input; with every admin having a "vote" on each measure under review; with some person or persons selected by the community to be moderator(s)/closer(s).


 * Is there anything in that that you see as "problematic"? - jc37 01:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Every admin? All 1200+ of them? And none of the other committed editors - i.e., 90% of our participants?  Yes, I see that as a problem. Since the members of the panel are elected, they are considered to be "trusted" by the community to carry out this task. One of the objectives is to de-escalate some of the contentious threads at ANI and occasionally AN and RFCU to a smaller group tasked to examine the specifics of the situation. I support the review being carried out on-wiki, and with editors and admins participating, but the decision being restricted to the panel members. I think it would probably be necessary to identify a time limit for the decision, so that it doesn't blossom into another one of those "everything anyone ever did wrong even once" situations.
 * As to moderators, I don't see anyone officially appointed as a moderator for any Arbcom cases or RFCUs, nor for the ANI threads this proposal is intended to handle; the task falls to whomever is the most qualified to deal with the specific situation. Risker (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, all 1200 (or so) admins could potentially comment. Though in practice, I doubt that all will. This should be no different than any of the noticeboard sub-pages, or, for that matter WP:DRV.
 * As any process on wiki, this should be voluntary. The difference is that I think that the moderator/closer should be from a "smaller group" selected by the community. It's one of the facets of DRV that has been (at times) less than great.
 * And if you think about it, DRV is a great comparative example, since (typically) admins close discussions, DRV is (in a sense) a review of an admin's actions; in this case a specific closure. - jc37 01:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Panels
I like the IBRP. Not so sure about the ARP's necessity — it could create a class division between admins. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Content resolution committee
I suggest an additional committee, an intermediate step arbcom, that has binding authority over content dispute. I think a name like Content Resolution Committee is Panel or Board or whatever is a good idea. Thoughts? Bstone (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason that the arbitration committee is expected to stay out of content disputes is primarily that they are very unlikely to be expert (as a committee) in any particular topic. To make content decisions would therefore be very weak ground on which to make binding declarations - it amounts to a binding declaration of The Wikipedia Truth. The same reasoning applies equally well to your (yet-another) committee proposal here. Also note that the committee itself recently rejected something much along these lines. Finally, I would observe that of recent proposals, we would have:
 * The arbitration committee
 * The content resolution committee
 * The ombudsmen committee
 * The indefinite block review board
 * The administrative review panel
 * Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy because it confines, constrains and strangles the highly-successful development of the encyclopedia which is doing excellently without such dead-hand bureaucracy. There are, of course, a few problem topic areas. They do not justify a 5-fold multiple on the overhead required of the community to run itself. Splash - tk 13:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Various content adjudication proposals have been made from time to time but I think it would be best to keep this particular discussion focused the delegation of streamlining of authority that Arbcom already possesses, and leave attempts to create new authority to a different discussion. Thatcher 13:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. However, I do not see that the arbitration committee presently possess the power to overturn individual blocks, nor individual protections. Neither are conduct issues until they become a problematic pattern. They hear appeals over bans, and can desysop those who abuse protection (and blocking etc) for their own personal advantage. Thus this proposal is actually a centralising proposal of authority currently held collectively and I don't see that those two items are malfunctioning on any meaningful basis. Ban reviews are different, as are appeals of discretionary sanctions, however. I don't see why we want to take away the authority to (un)block and (un)protect when there are minimal problems with the usage and review of these items at present. Splash - tk 13:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Gah, here we go again! Thatcher, am I reading correctly that the proposal here is to delegate some of the ArbComs powers to "impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes" to non-ArbCom members?  If so, then I would vehemently oppose any such proposal.  The ArbCom was set up very carefully and I think any suggestion to change that is ill advised.  If these committees are set up to do research and provide recommendations to ArbCom only (as Mackensen stated in my earlier post under "General Unease") and final decisions are still taken by the ArbCom members, then I don't care how many advisory boards get set up.  Livitup (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Terrible idea - Oppose. I'm starting to think you must be on some power kick, how many of those committees are you going to propose? --Allemandtando (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's just an idea, Allem. Why in the world do you think I am on some sort of power trip? I'd like to remind you about WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, both of which you are skirting dangerously close to violating. Bstone (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's just another project wikilawyer idea - more crap for the sake of it. We need less policy wonky, not more. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just in case, Allem, that there is any concern for my intentions, I'd like to refer you to this. Bstone (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Still a terrible unneeded idea. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

<--Just to be clear - the proposal under discussion does not relate in any way to content. This thread should be closed. Risker (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll
As discussion on this seems to have dried up, I would like to propose a non-binding straw poll to try and gauge whether or not there might be consensus to implement this. This does not violate WP:PNSD as there is no discussion to substitute for. Please sign under the appropriate heading or headings that reflects your opinion. Comments should be no more than a line or two within the "voting" headings. Feel free to include longer comments in the discussion section. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite Ban Review Panel
Do you support or oppose this panel? Sign with ~.

Support

 * 1) Stifle (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Bstone (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) GRuban (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Mr.Z-man 20:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) PhilKnight (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 6)  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) — trlkly 22:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Though "appointment by ArbCom" is a bit dubious: community election may be better. Possibly. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Hiding T 08:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) DGG (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) RxS (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC) I'm doubtful a review panel will come to any better informed decisions than Arbcom and if Arbcom does want an outside review there are several places that can go. Private deliberations on any level are problematic.
 * 4) - jc37 02:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 16:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Inadequately motivated; if the arbcom can't do the job, then arbcom needs to do a better job of doing its job. It's not clear that another committee would reach better decisions, either. Splash - tk 21:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Ral315 (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Too much power in the hands of the committee.  For this to be remotely useful, it needs to be a separate community election; otherwise, we're just expanding ArbCom's power base, and we've gone far enough along that road that I don't think its safe to take very many more steps in that direction.  Celarnor Talk to me  04:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Absolutely not.  Completely oppose. Way too much power.JJJ999 (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Let arbcom do its job. DGG (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But that's the point. Arbcom isn't doing its job when it comes to reviewing blocks/bans. They tend to ignore or put off unblock requests. So we need someone else who can take the load off of them, only giving Arbcom those bans which can't be determined by the community. — trlkly 22:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. ArbCom continues to fail at their community mandate and/or takes months to issue the most basic of decisions. Bstone (talk) 03:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So instead, suggesting that arbcomm members select people for a committee? In every example I can think of (with the exception of checkuser, which may be changing, or may have already changed), the community selects individuals for tasks, not arbcomm. - jc37 02:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Administrative Review Panel
Do you support or oppose this panel? Sign with ~.

Support

 * 1) Bstone (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Mr.Z-man 20:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Support the concept but not the exact process outlined

 * 1) GRuban (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC) - need to specify a way that this doesn't conflict with existing mechanisms like WP:DRV, WP:RPP, etc.
 * 2)  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 16:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC) - Bit too toothless.  Should have the power to de-sysop, unless a parallel community process to remove admins from power is developed.  I like the deprecation of secrecy, and I like the allowance for participation of non-admins.  I dislike the toothlessness and the excessive requirements for a majority.
 * 3) Jclemens (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Desysop'ing would be a good additional power to entrust to such a board.
 * 4) — trlkly 23:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Re: GRuban and see discussion
 * 5) A bit too toothless, but it seems to me like a small step in the right direction.  The next step would, as others have said, to grant desysopping powers.  You can't go wrong with having some lower courts with teeth; it lowers the absolute power of ArbCom, which is absolutely a positive, while keeping a judicial body there; plus, you can always appeal to ArbCom.  Celarnor Talk to me  04:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Stifle (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Hiding T 08:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Would prefer to give the community a mechanism to remove admins (for example, a recall vote following a request for comment), and use existing processes, such as deletion review, to repair any damage. PhilKnight (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Yet another bureaucratic committee is the notof what we need. We have AN/I, and there are problems enough  with one correct  place--people already forum shop. Dealing with all the significant ones yet a second time would be even worse. DGG (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) RxS (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Not needed, most admin related issues are handled at AN/I with a minimum of extraneous hoopla. And for the cases where there is some sort of disturbance over an admin related action, that's just the cost of doing business. No need for a panel to take the place of community discussion.
 * 6) Issues with the committee membership, and how selected. - jc37 02:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) My personal feeling is that we do not have a need for more panels or boards. I think that there exists numerous avenues for discussion, consensus building, dispute resolution, and the hearing of grievances. I'm not completely opposed to the idea, just to the notion of creating more layers of decisionmaking. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) I have a hard time imagining situations where this would have been helpful. If an issue is serious enough that it can't be settled at ANI or RFC, it is probably serious enough that an intermediate step before arbitration will not be helpful. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Per the reasons I have stated at length elsewhere. (Principally (i) demotes essentially all admins to a less-trusted underclass; (ii) would result in admins' heels being dogged by a new committee; (iii) encourages litigious distrust; (iv) it is a centralising proposal as it takes power away from those places that presently make these kinds of decisions). Splash - tk 21:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Ral315 (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * 1) — trlkly 23:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Hmm. I thought the point of discussion sessions was to keep the comments out of the !votes. But, whatever. I agree with PhilKnight's assessment that desysop should be a community process. Maybe a member of the new committee could close these, however. In other words, I still think the committee is a good idea. But it should only be used after a decision is established as controversial and can't be settled in the usual way (but before ArbCom, of course). — trlkly 23:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To date, every proposal for a community desysopping system has failed. Any reason to think one run by a special committee would stand a chance? Also, the proposal as written is already limited to "truly divisive issues." Mr.Z-man 23:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we need to have a discussion of a community de-sysopping system where admins themselves are disallowed from participating or voting. It's like when congressmen get to vote on their own salaries...little good ever comes of it.  Non-admins must lead the way in the de-sysopping discussion, because admins have far too much conflict of interest there.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 00:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The opposition to a community based desysopping system usually stems from the risk of people abusing the system: threatening to use it in disputes and people creating frivolous requests against admins they don't like, as well as the risk that it might create a lack of admins willing to do potentially controversial (but correct) actions. Not allowing admins to participate doesn't really address either of these (and many make the first concern worse). Mr.Z-man 00:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I stated that very poorly. I meant that admins should be barred from helping to create the process, not from participating in it once created.  That certainly doesn't eliminate your concerns, but I want to clarify my meaning.  The potential for abuse is always there, but that potential exists for almost any process.  IMO, the much greater potential for abuse exists in the complete absence of a real community system to recall Wikipedia's most powerful officials.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 20:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)