Talk:Global arbitration committee

Home wikis

The following discussion is closed.

---

This is an interesting concept, but how would it work with home-wiki arbitration committees? Is this soley for Meta? Thunderhead 04:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, just read that part. Thunderhead 04:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Stewards? Trustees?

Why should these members of the community be elected to the committee, automatically? The current wording seems to imply that these people would be on the board by default, but why should they be? It was not for this purpose that they were elected to their respective positions, so I fail to see why their installation in any kind of arbitration body would be valid. Aside from that, I think this idea has potential (barring a few translative barriers) and should be pursued in its proposition. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean elected to the arbitration committee? Stewards are not necessarily on the Board of Trustees, and I don't see any implication of that in the current wording.

The two groups include people elected with support from a wide community base, with diverse personalities and backgrounds, and having a fairly wide language competency. Since each arbitration is voluntary, subjects of arbitration do explicitly elect the arbitrators for that position. I think the voluntary inclusion of a diverse grouping of crosswiki-trusted users would make the committee much more open and fair than a small group of users specifically interested in arbitration. —Pathoschild 20:20:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I do mean arbitration committee; sorry. I do partially agree in that I think members of the Board of trustees could fairly be on such an arbcom, I'm just less sure about stewards. Sure, they were in some part elected because of their lingual ability, but the job of stewardship is quite different to that of dispute resolution. After all, stewards are not really required to make decisions in any deep way, right? Rather, they merely carry out the wishes of the community, the consensus, at each language wiki, not actually make the choices. Those are my thoughts, anyway. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Limit uses of GlobalArb

I propose that cases may only be presented to the global arbitration committee if:

• The wiki that the dispute is on does not have its own Arbitration Committee.

Or

• The dispute relates to the user's conduct across multiple wikis. --Ipatrol 14:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like second one.--Kwj2772 (論) 15:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The page already specifies the first. —Pathoschild 16:18:56, 04 April 2009 (UTC)

Some wikis without arbitration committees

might not want any arbcom (global or not).--149.205.109.170 11:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Different name?

GAC currently redirects to Grant Advisory Committee so I think a different name would be better. GRC is free for Global requests committee for example. SeeTheInvisible 23:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Implementation?

What's the consensus on Meta for this idea?Jasper Deng 05:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus, on this or the other global dispute resolution committee proposals. Various people have tried to organize a discussion, but that has never happened yet. Might get to that this year if I have time. Ajraddatz (Talk) 06:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Relationship with local ArbComs??

Before this proposal is even put to a vote, the relationship between this proposed GlobCom and the local arbitration committees needs to be clarified. For instance, would GlobCom be allowed to overrule a local ArbCom decision? ASCIIn2Bme 09:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the globcom usually will be for wikis without local arbcoms. I believe the local arbcom should be able to overturn, at least locally, globcom decisions, since it's highly likely they would know better.Jasper Deng 20:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a pretty bad idea

It is bad enough that enwiki has an arbcom that often receives its evidence in secret, confers in secret, and hands down decisions without publicly giving a reason, or giving only the briefest of explanation; and that because of its lack of transparency in such cases, the arbcom is under no pressure to give anyone a fair hearing and address his arguments, rather than ignoring them; but this would potentially impose that same model cross-wiki. The reasoning for why, if the enwiki arbcom is good, a global arbcom would be good too, is valid; the problem is that the premise is false. Leucosticte (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)