Despite the lack of participation, a significant majority of those who did opine were in favour of opening membership of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee to non-arbitrators one way or another. Several intriguing ways of doing this, including following the format currently used by the Audit Subcommittee and a "volunteer pool", were raised, and these are worthy of further discussion in order to refine the ideas.
Related issues that were raised included technical ones, such as ability to review CheckUser evidence in cases where abuse of multiple accounts was a determining factor in the ban and the principle of ban appeals being conducted in camera. The latter point attracted several suggestions for improving the process as well as several comments defending the existing system.
I will conclude with some recommendations, rather than the more customary determination of whether consensus has been reached on a particular point due to the limited participation, because much of what was raised here needs some refinement, and because the Arbitration Committee is not bound by community consensus per se. My recommendations are thus:
Starting in the second half of 2011, the Arbitration Committee has been considering a potential change to the structure of its Ban Appeals Subcommittee to include non-arbitrator seats.
The role of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee is to hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users, pursuant to the second clause of Section 1.1 of the Arbitration Policy. The subcommittee currently consists of three arbitrators, whose seats on the subcommittee are rotated on an irregular schedule. The subcommittee typically communicates directly with appellants via email; simple cases may be resolved directly by the subcommittee, while more complex ones are often sent to the Arbitration Committee as a whole for additional review.
A hybrid subcommittee structure is currently used for the Arbitration Committee's Audit Subcommittee, which consists of three arbitrators and three non-arbitrators selected directly from the community. The hybrid model offers several advantages over an arbitrator-only model, including increasing community involvement in the arbitration process and increasing the number of people available to address requests. However, concerns have also been raised regarding the feasibility of selecting additional community members, given the traditionally low number of viable candidates in prior selection cycles.
Editors are invited to comment regarding a potential change to the structure of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee to incorporate non-arbitrator seats. Editors are also invited to suggest other improvements to the ban appeals process. Kirill [talk] 20:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
This request for comments is organized in three sections; please feel free to respond in any or all of them.
The first section is for comments that directly address the potential change to the structure of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. The purpose of this section is to solicit community input and feedback regarding the potential change being considered by the Committee. Comments should, at a minimum, indicate whether the potential change is a desirable one.
Editors who wish to comment should create a new sub-section for their comments at the bottom of the section, using the following boilerplate:
===Comment from <User X>=== ====Editors who agree with this comment==== # ====Discussion about this comment====
The second section is a place where editors may indicate their interest in serving as non-arbitrator members of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee if the change is implemented. The purpose of this section is to allow the Committee to gauge whether a sufficient number of potential volunteers exists to allow the change to be implemented.
The third section is for other suggested improvements to the ban appeals process that are not directly related to the potential change discussed above. The purpose of this section is to solicit additional ideas for improving the process beyond those already under consideration by the Committee.
Editors who wish to suggest an improvement should create a new sub-section for their suggestion at the bottom of the section, using the following boilerplate:
===Suggestion from <User X>=== ====Editors who agree with this suggestion==== # ====Discussion about this suggestion====
If you wish to suggest multiple unrelated improvements, please create a separate sub-section for each to more easily allow independent discussion of each suggestion.
In short, the structure for AUSC is a strong model for any expansion of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. The AUSC demonstrates that community (non-arb) members can work, coordinate, and organize effectively alongside ever-busy arbitrators, in a manner that efficiently delegates an important responsibility to a subset of the larger Arbitration Committee. Thus, I feel the change would serve a net positive.
Here's what I think such a change should entail --
Just like AUSC, which has three community members, the newly expanded Ban Appeals Subcommittee should have three community members. While any number is in some ways arbitrary, three seems to fit a middle ground between "two few" and "too many". Remember, we're trying to delegate. Delegation works best when you have a small group which can be more efficient. Delays will happen in a group of too many members, of too large an expansion. The purpose is to give a heavy area of work -- ban appeals -- to a small group, to alleviate burdens from arbitrators.
As to the terms of these three community members, I think one year is appropriate. It gives them enough time to really get a handle of the job while not too long where their inclusion on the committee is not subject to community review.
The AUSC structure is one that is a proven success. We should be keen of that in making this change.
-- Lord Roem ( talk) 19:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Adjudication and audit are distinct functions; non-arbcom members of the audit committee are necessary ( Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?) for auditing what arbcom does behind closed doors but not necessary for hearing ban appeals. Doubling the size of the committee from three to six increases the number of one to one pairings from three to 15, resulting in deliberation/communication time increase with no discernable benefit.
Given the difficulty in getting candidates due, in part to the time necessary to do the job I'm puzzled by this tendency to suggest motions which will increase the time load of the arbitration committee.
The reality of how ban appeals are handled by the Arbitration Committee is that, regardless of having a named Subcommittee, appeals are picked up by whoever in the full Committee is available and inclined to pick up the appeal; other members of the Committee may give their views according to their availability and inclination; and a decision is made which is left open for a few days to see if there is any disagreement. It's not a perfect system, but it does have the advantage of being flexible and of being realistic with the time-management of busy volunteers.
In working out an improved system I would welcome looking at a pool of volunteers rather than a fixed number (though building into the process an agreed minimum number of Arbs and non-Arbs needed for a decision to be actioned), so that there is the same degree of flexibility and realism as present in the current set up. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd be interested in appeals being made on Wikipedia with appropriate transparency and record keeping. Only if there were privacy issues should an appeal be looked at via emails. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Is it worth looking to see if the Unblock Ticket Request System - or elements of it - can be incorporated into a new system? SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
As a ban is essentially an advanced type of blocking, anyone on this committee should have been entrusted with the tools to be able to block/unblock. And since they may need to assess an individuals edits, they should be able to see deleted edits.
This is similar to the guideline that only those who can delete a page should close a discussion with a result of delete.
I'm phrasing it this way in case some time in the future such administrative tools are not limited to admins only. (For example, "researcher" can see deleted edits.) - jc37 09:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
As a ban all too often has issues of sock puppetry involved, anyone on this committee should have been entrusted with the checkuser tools. - jc37 09:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I am happy seeing this RfC, and the willingness to consider change as a means to a better end. I personally feel that arbitrators have, and will always have a completely full plate fulfilling that obligation. I also believe it wrong, and know of no other model where the jurist adjudicating a remedy sits also as the appellate for the same adjudication. For reasons related to this premise, I suggest ban appeals should be a completely separate committee, elected by the community to serve in that unique capacity. My76Strat ( talk) 10:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I am concerned about the small number of people who are volunteering to serve on BASC. We don't need an army of people on BASC but I would have expected some CUs and more admins to apply. I also would have expected more participants in the comments above. I would like to suggest that Arbcom post notifications of this discussion on the talk pages of all admins and CU/OS functionaries. Additionally or alternatively, since my understanding is that someone is working on getting a sitenotice posted regarding a call for more CU/OS applicants, perhaps the same sitenotice could also ask for BASC applicants. Pine ✉ 20:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I would like any person to be able to open an appeal on another editors behalf, to be able to present the case for examination in place of the third party. Every time good editors see other good editors wrongfully banned, it causes editor retention problems. If you are 'fighting the good fight' like a platoon of soldiers advancing, and good people are being shot right beside you and thrown out of the game, that has a demoralising effect. Being able to bring and conduct reviews would address this issue properly, especially where the banned user is too incensed to appeal themselves. (When you get punched in the head at someone's house, it is often wisdom not to return, even if there is an apology on offer) Penyulap ☏ 20:33, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)
I like the idea of expanding BASC to include members of the broader community. However I do not like the idea of any closed body overturning bans imposed by the community at large. It seems that what BASC usually does in such cases is to determine if the appeal has any merit at all, and then open it to community discussion if the deem that it does. I believe that arrangement should be formalized and that BASC should be specifically prohibited from overturning community imposed bans. Anyone banned through an open-to-the-public discussion at ANI or elsewhere should go through the same process to get the ban overturned. I don't believe ArbCom has the power to overturn the community in any other regard except this one, and I do think that in most cases they wouldn't anyway, but it can't hurt to actually say "no, you can't do that" so there is no ambiguity on the subject. When it comes to this level of dispute resolution, ambiguity is almost always a bad thing. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
If the Ban Appeals Subcommittee is expanded to include non-arbitrator seats, I would be interested in serving on the subcommittee:
My concern is with the potential for gaming the system. There are a significant number of people whose mission in life is to waste as much of the community's time as possible. A volunteer group to help banned users to appeal and to assist users back form bans (mentoring) would do more good. In the end the number of bans is small, I see no real evidence that ArbCom is unable to handle the workload, and we have the huge advantage of an impartial and independent review for community banned editors, with an unambiguous closure and no false hope. Guy ( Help!) 21:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Despite the lack of participation, a significant majority of those who did opine were in favour of opening membership of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee to non-arbitrators one way or another. Several intriguing ways of doing this, including following the format currently used by the Audit Subcommittee and a "volunteer pool", were raised, and these are worthy of further discussion in order to refine the ideas.
Related issues that were raised included technical ones, such as ability to review CheckUser evidence in cases where abuse of multiple accounts was a determining factor in the ban and the principle of ban appeals being conducted in camera. The latter point attracted several suggestions for improving the process as well as several comments defending the existing system.
I will conclude with some recommendations, rather than the more customary determination of whether consensus has been reached on a particular point due to the limited participation, because much of what was raised here needs some refinement, and because the Arbitration Committee is not bound by community consensus per se. My recommendations are thus:
Starting in the second half of 2011, the Arbitration Committee has been considering a potential change to the structure of its Ban Appeals Subcommittee to include non-arbitrator seats.
The role of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee is to hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users, pursuant to the second clause of Section 1.1 of the Arbitration Policy. The subcommittee currently consists of three arbitrators, whose seats on the subcommittee are rotated on an irregular schedule. The subcommittee typically communicates directly with appellants via email; simple cases may be resolved directly by the subcommittee, while more complex ones are often sent to the Arbitration Committee as a whole for additional review.
A hybrid subcommittee structure is currently used for the Arbitration Committee's Audit Subcommittee, which consists of three arbitrators and three non-arbitrators selected directly from the community. The hybrid model offers several advantages over an arbitrator-only model, including increasing community involvement in the arbitration process and increasing the number of people available to address requests. However, concerns have also been raised regarding the feasibility of selecting additional community members, given the traditionally low number of viable candidates in prior selection cycles.
Editors are invited to comment regarding a potential change to the structure of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee to incorporate non-arbitrator seats. Editors are also invited to suggest other improvements to the ban appeals process. Kirill [talk] 20:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
This request for comments is organized in three sections; please feel free to respond in any or all of them.
The first section is for comments that directly address the potential change to the structure of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. The purpose of this section is to solicit community input and feedback regarding the potential change being considered by the Committee. Comments should, at a minimum, indicate whether the potential change is a desirable one.
Editors who wish to comment should create a new sub-section for their comments at the bottom of the section, using the following boilerplate:
===Comment from <User X>=== ====Editors who agree with this comment==== # ====Discussion about this comment====
The second section is a place where editors may indicate their interest in serving as non-arbitrator members of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee if the change is implemented. The purpose of this section is to allow the Committee to gauge whether a sufficient number of potential volunteers exists to allow the change to be implemented.
The third section is for other suggested improvements to the ban appeals process that are not directly related to the potential change discussed above. The purpose of this section is to solicit additional ideas for improving the process beyond those already under consideration by the Committee.
Editors who wish to suggest an improvement should create a new sub-section for their suggestion at the bottom of the section, using the following boilerplate:
===Suggestion from <User X>=== ====Editors who agree with this suggestion==== # ====Discussion about this suggestion====
If you wish to suggest multiple unrelated improvements, please create a separate sub-section for each to more easily allow independent discussion of each suggestion.
In short, the structure for AUSC is a strong model for any expansion of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. The AUSC demonstrates that community (non-arb) members can work, coordinate, and organize effectively alongside ever-busy arbitrators, in a manner that efficiently delegates an important responsibility to a subset of the larger Arbitration Committee. Thus, I feel the change would serve a net positive.
Here's what I think such a change should entail --
Just like AUSC, which has three community members, the newly expanded Ban Appeals Subcommittee should have three community members. While any number is in some ways arbitrary, three seems to fit a middle ground between "two few" and "too many". Remember, we're trying to delegate. Delegation works best when you have a small group which can be more efficient. Delays will happen in a group of too many members, of too large an expansion. The purpose is to give a heavy area of work -- ban appeals -- to a small group, to alleviate burdens from arbitrators.
As to the terms of these three community members, I think one year is appropriate. It gives them enough time to really get a handle of the job while not too long where their inclusion on the committee is not subject to community review.
The AUSC structure is one that is a proven success. We should be keen of that in making this change.
-- Lord Roem ( talk) 19:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Adjudication and audit are distinct functions; non-arbcom members of the audit committee are necessary ( Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?) for auditing what arbcom does behind closed doors but not necessary for hearing ban appeals. Doubling the size of the committee from three to six increases the number of one to one pairings from three to 15, resulting in deliberation/communication time increase with no discernable benefit.
Given the difficulty in getting candidates due, in part to the time necessary to do the job I'm puzzled by this tendency to suggest motions which will increase the time load of the arbitration committee.
The reality of how ban appeals are handled by the Arbitration Committee is that, regardless of having a named Subcommittee, appeals are picked up by whoever in the full Committee is available and inclined to pick up the appeal; other members of the Committee may give their views according to their availability and inclination; and a decision is made which is left open for a few days to see if there is any disagreement. It's not a perfect system, but it does have the advantage of being flexible and of being realistic with the time-management of busy volunteers.
In working out an improved system I would welcome looking at a pool of volunteers rather than a fixed number (though building into the process an agreed minimum number of Arbs and non-Arbs needed for a decision to be actioned), so that there is the same degree of flexibility and realism as present in the current set up. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd be interested in appeals being made on Wikipedia with appropriate transparency and record keeping. Only if there were privacy issues should an appeal be looked at via emails. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Is it worth looking to see if the Unblock Ticket Request System - or elements of it - can be incorporated into a new system? SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
As a ban is essentially an advanced type of blocking, anyone on this committee should have been entrusted with the tools to be able to block/unblock. And since they may need to assess an individuals edits, they should be able to see deleted edits.
This is similar to the guideline that only those who can delete a page should close a discussion with a result of delete.
I'm phrasing it this way in case some time in the future such administrative tools are not limited to admins only. (For example, "researcher" can see deleted edits.) - jc37 09:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
As a ban all too often has issues of sock puppetry involved, anyone on this committee should have been entrusted with the checkuser tools. - jc37 09:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I am happy seeing this RfC, and the willingness to consider change as a means to a better end. I personally feel that arbitrators have, and will always have a completely full plate fulfilling that obligation. I also believe it wrong, and know of no other model where the jurist adjudicating a remedy sits also as the appellate for the same adjudication. For reasons related to this premise, I suggest ban appeals should be a completely separate committee, elected by the community to serve in that unique capacity. My76Strat ( talk) 10:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I am concerned about the small number of people who are volunteering to serve on BASC. We don't need an army of people on BASC but I would have expected some CUs and more admins to apply. I also would have expected more participants in the comments above. I would like to suggest that Arbcom post notifications of this discussion on the talk pages of all admins and CU/OS functionaries. Additionally or alternatively, since my understanding is that someone is working on getting a sitenotice posted regarding a call for more CU/OS applicants, perhaps the same sitenotice could also ask for BASC applicants. Pine ✉ 20:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I would like any person to be able to open an appeal on another editors behalf, to be able to present the case for examination in place of the third party. Every time good editors see other good editors wrongfully banned, it causes editor retention problems. If you are 'fighting the good fight' like a platoon of soldiers advancing, and good people are being shot right beside you and thrown out of the game, that has a demoralising effect. Being able to bring and conduct reviews would address this issue properly, especially where the banned user is too incensed to appeal themselves. (When you get punched in the head at someone's house, it is often wisdom not to return, even if there is an apology on offer) Penyulap ☏ 20:33, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)
I like the idea of expanding BASC to include members of the broader community. However I do not like the idea of any closed body overturning bans imposed by the community at large. It seems that what BASC usually does in such cases is to determine if the appeal has any merit at all, and then open it to community discussion if the deem that it does. I believe that arrangement should be formalized and that BASC should be specifically prohibited from overturning community imposed bans. Anyone banned through an open-to-the-public discussion at ANI or elsewhere should go through the same process to get the ban overturned. I don't believe ArbCom has the power to overturn the community in any other regard except this one, and I do think that in most cases they wouldn't anyway, but it can't hurt to actually say "no, you can't do that" so there is no ambiguity on the subject. When it comes to this level of dispute resolution, ambiguity is almost always a bad thing. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
If the Ban Appeals Subcommittee is expanded to include non-arbitrator seats, I would be interested in serving on the subcommittee:
My concern is with the potential for gaming the system. There are a significant number of people whose mission in life is to waste as much of the community's time as possible. A volunteer group to help banned users to appeal and to assist users back form bans (mentoring) would do more good. In the end the number of bans is small, I see no real evidence that ArbCom is unable to handle the workload, and we have the huge advantage of an impartial and independent review for community banned editors, with an unambiguous closure and no false hope. Guy ( Help!) 21:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)