Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mythdon (talk | contribs) at 01:06, 31 July 2009 (→Request process). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Previous relevant discussions: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Appeal Committee, Misplaced Pages talk:Banning policy/Archive 3#Appeals of community bans, Misplaced Pages talk:DRV#RFC

Superceded by ArbCom

Would an appeals committee have any real teeth if they are superseded by another committee?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. —harej (talk) (cool!) 04:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think laying Misplaced Pages 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

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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. —harej (talk) (cool!) 01:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)