The Arbitration Committee has not changed in form since its inception in 2004, but it would be idle to pretend that the same can be said of Wikipedia. The scope of the project and the size of the community have expanded by several orders of magnitude, and in biographies of living persons and nationalist disputes the project has encountered two intractable pressure points. Even as these changes have taken place, the social consensus which formerly governed the project has been stretched to the breaking point, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the collapse of the RFC as an effective tool of dispute resolution.
The replacement for the RFC is dispute resolution by noticeboard, often conducted at WP:ANI. It is idle to pretend that any discussion which exceeds 30KB will have any effective outcome; the overall effect is to antagonize participants, sharpen differences, and provide fodder for inevitable arbitration requests. While this format does give the opportunity for every user to "have his or her say," it has never been demonstrated what purpose that serves other than ego gratification. Dispute resolution doesn't exist for that purpose; it exists to resolve disputes or it should be done away with. The current model is broken; what can supplement/replace it?
One idea, broached before, is devolving certain of the Arbitration Committee's functions to a committee. The committee, on behalf of Jimbo Wales, is the final court of appeal for block review. These appeals frequently take a back seat to the committee's other business (which is legion) and more often than not aren't properly heard and acted upon. The committee often doesn't have the time to investigate the circumstances of the block, so unless an arbitrator is personally familiar with the situation or takes a personal interest in the matter the appeal will likely fall by the wayside. A possible solution is the creation of a block review board, composed of administrators and senior content editors, with a mandate to review appeals and make specific recommendations to the committee, or possibly to act on the committee's behalf directly.
Another possibility is an administrative review board, which would be a partial successor to the RFC system and an intermediate step prior to arbitration. Composed again of selected administrators and senior content editors, the board would serve as a form of appeal for block review while the situation is still fresh (possibly while the user is still blocked, even). This would take the place of the current system, in which blocks and other administrative actions are appealed to WP:ANI or similar fora. The purpose would be to circumscribe discussion and promote actual resolution--one way or the other. It benefits no one to hold prolonged discussions with no outcome; in my view matters are almost always made worse.
Administrative review board edit
- Composition
Perhaps 20-30 administrators and senior content editors, with groups of 3-5 handling specific appeals.
- Selection
Staggered six month elective terms with no possibility of re-election but multiple terms are permitted. That is, no consecutive terms. Election is a straight up/down vote, all candidates with 75% approval appointed to the board.
- Removal
Members of the review board may be removed by the Arbitration Committee.
- Powers
- Overturn blocks
- Overturn page protection
- Standing
Decisions by the review board may be appealed to the arbitration committee but not overturned by individual administrators. Any user may appeal a block or page protection to the review board, which may do one of three things:
- Decline to hear the appeal
- Affirm the administrative action
- Overturn the administrative action