Checks and balances

Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee was first proposed in late 2003 as half of a solution to a dilemma: the site was growing too large for Jimbo Wales to continue settling disputes singlehandedly. So early in 2004 a Mediation Committee and an Arbitration Committee were established: the mediators would address content disputes and the arbitrators would address conduct disputes.

A lot has changed in six years. A former arbitrator summarized the dynamic in these words:

"Mediation and arbitration...at the time they were two forces one and the same, which were going to work together, the mediation to be the carrot and arbitration to be the stick. As it turns out sticks work far too well for us and carrots...aren't too tasty." James Forrester, as quoted from The Wikipedia Revolution by Andrew Lih, p. 181.

This RfC exists for two reasons:

To see if the community agrees that ArbCom's role is limited to conduct dispute resolution.
To propose checks and balances upon the Arbitration Committee.

Summary

The Arbitration Committee has the power to ban editors, to desysop administrators, to deflag checkusers and oversighters, and to overturn community sanctions. During arbitration's early years Jimbo Wales remained active in associated work such as hearing appeals. Now he has retreated to a ceremonial role.

Other than the annual election there is currently no active check or balance upon the arbitrators. Appeals of arbitration decisions go back to the arbitrators themselves. Ban reviews go to a panel appointed by the arbitrators. This arrangement has structural weaknesses: when the arbitrators make a mistake it is very difficult to remedy. There is also a risk that ArbCom's power could exert a coercive influence over content and policy.

Examples

There have been at least three times in the last twelve months when disagreement over the scope of the ArbCom's mandate resulted in divisive disscussions within the community. All three of these proposals were initiated by the same arbitrator, Kirill Lokshin.[1][2][3]

In May 2009 the Arbitration Committee initiated a request for comment on content dispute resolution. ArbCom opened it without consulting or notifying the mediators. No successful proposals arose from the discussion.

In July 2009 the Arbitration Committee attempted to announce the formation of an Advisory Council on Project Development with membership already appointed before the community was notified. A request for comment followed; the Advisory Council failed and was marked historical.

In January 2010 the Arbitration Committee was asked to open a case regarding biographies of living people and a wheel war between administrators. The Committee handled the matter by summary motion without opening a formal case or hearing evidence and commended one side of the dispute.[4] Two days later a second wheel war occurred at a related issue.[5]

No sitting arbitrator has ever been reprimanded formally by the Arbitration Committee, yet two arbitrators have resigned under adverse news media attention.

In May 2009 an arbitrator, Sam Blacketer was discovered to have been desysopped in a 2006 arbitration case under an undisclosed prior account. He also edited articles with a conflict of interest. The problem surfaced within the UK news media and resulted in his resignation.
In February 2007 another arbitrator, Essjay, resigned after international news coverage criticized him for having inflated his educational credentials. He had claimed to hold two doctoral degrees although he actually had no university degree of any type.

Drafter notes

Please conduct threaded discussions at the talk page, with links from specific proposals to talk discussion if necessary.
WP:ABF disclaimer: the drafter will not seek appointment in any new body that might emerge from this RfC.

Proposals

Proposed resolutions begin here.

Proposals by Durova

Scope

The scope of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee is conduct dispute resolution.

Endorse

Durova⁴⁰⁵ 03:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Focus

The Arbitration Committee's core function is weighing arbitration cases. Other activities currently handled by the Arbitration Committee that distract from that core function should be diverted to other parts of the community in wholly independent bodies not appointed by arbitrators.

Endorse

Durova⁴⁰⁵ 03:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Community

Content, policy, and governance issues should be handled by the community. Individual arbitrators are welcome to participate in those discussions as individuals; their elected office is valueless in that context and their opinion carries no more inherent weight than the opinion of any other editor.

Endorse

Durova⁴⁰⁵ 03:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence

Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee should not decide cases without hearing evidence.

Endorse

Durova⁴⁰⁵ 03:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Wikipedia has six types of formal dispute resolution. Wikipedians are encouraged to pursue one or more of the other methods before filing an arbitration request unless the situation requires immediate attention or prior arbitration has already taken place. The other forms of dispute resolution are:

Endorse

Durova⁴⁰⁵ 03:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Urgent action

The Arbitration Committee may take summary action only to prevent immediate harm, such as to end an ongoing wheel war. A full case with evidence should follow if the parties request it.

Endorse

Durova⁴⁰⁵ 03:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Appeals

Appeals of arbitration decisions should not be handled by the same people who voted upon the decision or by people appointed by arbitrators who voted upon the decision. For an example of an ArbCom appointed body, see WP:BASC.

Endorse

Durova⁴⁰⁵ 03:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator conduct

Wikipedia needs a mechanism outside the Arbitration Committee to handle issues with arbitrator conduct.

Endorse

Durova⁴⁰⁵ 03:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Biographies of living people

Copy of a view by Sandstein at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people at 73 supports, 5 opposes as of 30 January 2010.[6] This deserves wider attention; people who participated there are welcome to reaffirm.

The Arbitration Committee has the authority to settle disputes by applying accepted Wikipedia policy and guidelines, but it has no authority to make policy. For this reason, the motion (permalink) about to be passed in the current BLP deletions arbitration case only settles the dispute about the specific mass deletions, blocks and other actions at issue in that case. The motion is not to be understood as changing or superseding general deletion policy and process as applied to the biographies of living persons, and it should be considered void if and insofar as it might have been intended to have that effect. Instead, any policy change should be decided by community consensus, starting with this RfC.
Endorse

Durova⁴⁰⁵ 03:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)