Wikipedia talk:Do not trust others

This seems an unhelpful jeremiad, especially in regards to the first proposal, which would delegate arbcom's ban review. Speaking as an ex-arb, these appeals come in all the time. Arbcom does not have the time nor resources to deal with them, and if the banned user doesn't have a champion will probably stay banned. This is a bad thing, and it needs to be addressed. Mackensen (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I think you mean the first of the two proposals at the second bullet in 'See also': the panel which would review indefinite blocks. Surely the bulk of these (email?) appeals can be disposed of with the answer "no, go away". The rest can either be accepted as arb cases if they are obviously problematic, or the person can be firmly directed to WP:AN (or ANI) if unclear prima facie. There, if the block/ban is obviously problematic it will either be reversed or if it's really to confusing, someone will file a 3rd-party case to the committee. This has happened plenty of times before, and such are not so numerous as to cause case-load problems (imo). Although I think this panel would encourage litigious distrust, it is unlikely to be as problematic in the longer-run as the second panel (below). Splash - tk 23:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Even an email to that effect would be an improvement on the current situation (and yes, most of these are by email). Most of the bans are accounts indefinitely blocked with little or no review; the committee doesn't have the time nor inclination, in my experience, to research these and see what's up. Given the facts of the case arbcom can make a decision; the main purpose here is to help get arbcom the facts. Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As I've indicated elsewhere, the presumption is that a smaller body drawn from "the collective" would (a) reach a different decision and (b) that this outcome would be harmful. I'm not convinced. In practice "the collective" means one administrator and that's fine, because 99% of all administrative actions are uncontroversial. The body I've in mind (and we're talking strictly about the second panel) exists for the awful forest fires on the noticeboards which are not adequately resolved by "the collective." That's it. Mackensen (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not the possibly different outcome that is the main source of harm. It's the ready availability of a body that will, at reasonable numerical occurrence, overrule the 'lower' ranks of admins. Now we can all be second guessed at any step, have to defend our actions to a new bureaucracy whenever someone gets irritated by them. It's demoralising and (imo) demeaning. Surely the way this will go is (eg): Block → Oi!, I'm going to your superiors right away. Same for straightforward bans, and protections (and probably deletions too, despite the exclusion, since it will deal with "controversial administrative actions"). It permits a rapid-fire set of mini-arbitration cases which, at the moment, the relevant admin can confidently be sure are not going to dog their steps. Or, they will die an instant death on AN(I) whereas the panel must necessarily deliberate to some extent. Splash - tk 23:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the situation you describe is a real danger and one of several possible outcomes. Much would turn on the composition of the panel, and you can't guarantee that. More thoughts on that later. Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why real deliberation would be needed, even with the new committee. As long as you explain your actions when you do them, it shouldn't even be considered controversial. So-and-So did this, which is bannable, so I banned them. As long as So-and-So actually did what you said he did, there wouldn't need to be further discussion, just like on AN(I). — trlkly 22:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also note that I don't consider the panels "wedded," and I think the first of the two is the most vital. Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)