Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Open matters/Devolution

Preface

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

Proposals

Appeal review devolution

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

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

Appeal review committees

Sanction Appeal Review Committee

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

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

Block Appeal Review Committee

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

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

• What's the rationale for having this Committee separate from (for example) the AAAC? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

Administrative Action Appeal Review Committee

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

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

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

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

Appeal committee composition

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

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

Membership

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

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

• I'll obviously prefer the second variant. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Size

Proposal: Each ARC shall be composed of fifteen editors.

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

Terms

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

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

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

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

• Prefer leaving 1 and/or 2 open; if there's significant reason to oppose a member to serve another term, then they won't be appointed for that term (consecutive or non-consecutive). I don't see the need to confine members not to serve multiple terms. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal

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

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

Appeal committee procedures

Submissions

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

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

Direct appeals

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

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

Arbitration sanctions

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

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

Public appeals

Proposal: All appeals to an ARC shall be public.

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

Deliberations

Proposal: ARCs shall conduct all deliberations publicly.

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

Adoption of decisions

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

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

• Prefer second variant - first variant represents part of the reason we have trouble with certain community decisions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Implementation of decisions

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

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

Acting party

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

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

• Prefer the first variant. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Inability to decide

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

Arbitrator comments

Other comments

• Of course. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)