User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
NOTE: This RFC is not open yet and is still being designed. Please see the talk page to help out. |
 |
This page in a nutshell: A Requests for Comment to determine what if any community mandated definitions and changes are required to be adopted for the Arbitration Committee and Requests for Arbitration process. |
NOTE: This is very much a draft and still probably several weeks I'd guess from being "live", so feedback is requested on the formatting, nature, and structure of the RFC.
- What is the Arbitration Committee?
The Arbitration Committee was created in 2004 by Jimbo Wales to help deal with the growing number of serious disputes on Wikipedia that he could not moderate alone. Wales wrote in January 2004:
The Arbitration Committee [...] can impose a solution that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the exception that I reserve the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve the whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster. But I regard that as unlikely, and I plan to do it about as often as the Queen of England dissolves Parliament against their wishes, i.e., basically never, but it is one last safety valve for our values.
In April 2007, Wales confirmed that the committee could overturn any decision he makes in his traditional capacity within Wikipedia. This effectively promoted the Arbitration Committee to the control of the community. Arbiters are directly voted on by the community in a yearly election process. Wales traditionally appoints all the top "winners" by percentage to the open Committee seats, and has not failed to do so; there is no precedent for what may or may not happen if he attempted to overrule the Community on the Election Process and was challenged on such an action. Some may say he has authority to override the community; however, some may say that per Wikipedia's Foundational principles that all matters not interfering with Foundation matters are settled by consensus (the election process) his "appointing" members to the AC may be just a formality of announcing them and no more. In practice, by our traditions, and by our community norms of all matters being settled by consensus, combined with Wales's statement that the Committee has authority over him, it is reasonable to assume that the Committee is now in practice autonomous and answerable only to itself, the Community that selects it, and the Wikimedia Foundation and board itself.
Traditionally, arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process — it is a last resort, only to be employed when all else has failed. However, in some situations this is not the case, and many users do not treat it like this. As practice reflects policy, the role of the Committee (which is now just a formalized extension of the Community, and it's "highest body") will change per the Community's wishes over time.
- Reason for the RFC.
There has never been a Requests for comment (RFC) on the Arbitration Committee itself and it's processes, ever. Initially drafted and made by Jimbo Wales, and then modified over time by the Committee itself, it is historically isolated with all major Committee discussion "behind the scenes" over IRC, private e-mail lists, or other means. In recent times, across several cases, and historically, the role, purpose, workload, and function of the Committee has come under growing scrutiny. A major factor for the December 2007 elections was whether or not Arbiter prospects would have the time to perform the duties they were volunteering for. This RFC will provide an opportunity for the Community to interact in a central discussion, to help shape the future of the Committee, and for how it would and could best serve the Wikipedia community.
- Duration
This RFC will remain open for a minimum of 3 months from the time it opens, given its very expansive and broad nature. If it is felt more time is needed before the RFC closes as the 3 month point approaches, a simple motion or proposition can be put forward to expand the length of the RFC.
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
[edit] Statements about what works well in the current Arbitration Committee process
Views specifically about what you feel works well, and/or to the benefit and service of the community, under the current setup that we have.
[edit] View by a user
This is a summary written by any active user. In the interests of conciseness, and to get a clear and hopefully uncluttered feel of the community, please leave shorter individual statements in the appropriate topic section, rather than one long condensed statement. This will allow users to endorse specific aspects more easily.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
[edit] View by a user
This is a summary written by any active user. In the interests of conciseness, and to get a clear and hopefully uncluttered feel of the community, please leave shorter individual statements in the appropriate topic section, rather than one long condensed statement. This will allow users to endorse specific aspects more easily.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
[edit] Statements about what does not work well in the current Arbitration Committee process
Views specifically about what you feel does not work well in the current Arbitration Committee process, and/or to the detriment and dissservice of the community, under the current setup that we have. This is not a forum to air grievances about specific past or present Arbiters, but perceived 'bad' actions may be cited as examples.
[edit] View by a user
This is a summary written by any active user. In the interests of conciseness, and to get a clear and hopefully uncluttered feel of the community, please leave shorter individual statements in the appropriate topic section, rather than one long condensed statement. This will allow users to endorse specific aspects more easily.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
[edit] View by a user
This is a summary written by any active user. In the interests of conciseness, and to get a clear and hopefully uncluttered feel of the community, please leave shorter individual statements in the appropriate topic section, rather than one long condensed statement. This will allow users to endorse specific aspects more easily.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
[edit] Clarifications on limits of what the Arbitration Committee can't do
Lately, ranging from the IRC case to the Mantanmoreland case, questions have arisen in a variety of forms of what the scope and limitations of the Arbitration Committee are. In theory, the Committee can "do" anything, but if they were to overstep their community approved mandate the community could simply rein them in. As this is a constant question, please post your thoughts, if any, of what would be considered by the community to be outside the realm of the Arbitration Committee as a body.
[edit] View by a user
This is a summary written by any active user. In the interests of conciseness, and to get a clear and hopefully uncluttered feel of the community, please leave shorter individual statements in the appropriate topic section, rather than one long condensed statement. This will allow users to endorse specific aspects more easily.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
[edit] View by a user
This is a summary written by any active user. In the interests of conciseness, and to get a clear and hopefully uncluttered feel of the community, please leave shorter individual statements in the appropriate topic section, rather than one long condensed statement. This will allow users to endorse specific aspects more easily.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
[edit] The Arbitration Committee and scaling
When the AC was first created, Wikipedia was a much smaller place. Today, Wikipedia is a Top 10 website, and continues to grow all the time. There will soon be 2,000 administrators, and ever more users. This section will be for statements, ideas, and suggestions specifically for how the AC can deal with problems of scaling to the ever-growing size, ever-growing requests for cases, and ever-growing case load.
[edit] View by a user
This is a summary written by any active user. In the interests of conciseness, and to get a clear and hopefully uncluttered feel of the community, please leave shorter individual statements in the appropriate topic section, rather than one long condensed statement. This will allow users to endorse specific aspects more easily.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
[edit] View by a user
This is a summary written by any active user. In the interests of conciseness, and to get a clear and hopefully uncluttered feel of the community, please leave shorter individual statements in the appropriate topic section, rather than one long condensed statement. This will allow users to endorse specific aspects more easily.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
[edit] Arbitration Committee change and reform
Views specifically about what you feel should change about the current Arbitration Committee process, and why. Please don't list long winding new processes--be concise, and give summaries. Avoid unique formatting as much as possible. For issues specific to the questions of scaling and case volume, please post your views in the Scaling section above this one.
[edit] View by a user
This is a summary written by any active user. In the interests of conciseness, and to get a clear and hopefully uncluttered feel of the community, please leave shorter individual statements in the appropriate topic section, rather than one long condensed statement. This will allow users to endorse specific aspects more easily.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
[edit] View by a user
This is a summary written by any active user. In the interests of conciseness, and to get a clear and hopefully uncluttered feel of the community, please leave shorter individual statements in the appropriate topic section, rather than one long condensed statement. This will allow users to endorse specific aspects more easily.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
[edit] Views and statements about this RFC
Please place any statements about this RFC itself specifically in this section.
[edit] View by a user
This is a summary written by any active user. In the interests of conciseness, and to get a clear and hopefully uncluttered feel of the community, please leave shorter individual statements in the appropriate topic section, rather than one long condensed statement. This will allow users to endorse specific aspects more easily.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
[edit] View by a user
This is a summary written by any active user. In the interests of conciseness, and to get a clear and hopefully uncluttered feel of the community, please leave shorter individual statements in the appropriate topic section, rather than one long condensed statement. This will allow users to endorse specific aspects more easily.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
[edit] Motions to close or extend this RFC
The motion to close may not be initiated until a minimum of 3 months (12 weeks) after the RFC is officially "opened". The motion to extend the duration of the RFC beyond 3 months can be done, but the nominator should specific a fixed duration not longer than 3 months, and should not be done until at least 2 months have passed (for example, if after 10 or 11 weeks, discussions related to the RFC are still being hammered out, we should probably extend).
[edit] Motion to extend this RFC
For example, "Let's extend the RFC for x weeks/months."
Users who endorse this extension:
[edit] Motion to close this RFC
Self-explanatory, RFC will be open at least 3 months from when it goes live.
Users who endorse closing this RFC:
[edit] Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
