|This is a failed proposal. Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump.|
There is nothing judged by the current sixteen members of the Arbitration Committee that cannot be judged by themselves and at the same time any other member of Wikipedia (at WP:ANI or whatever). Many users involved take themselves much too seriously (clients and arbitrators). It is a funny joke. It does not help Wikipedia's reputation for the many people critical of Wikipedia. It is what happens when Wikipedians become so immersed by Wikipedia policies that a political correctness forms (i.e. "admin tools" versus "admin powers") and sayings like AGF become treasured life-long lessons. (The difference between a block and a ban is quite trendy right now; you can ask any Wikipedian about it and you will get quite a long answer.)
Relatively small "communities" like Wikipedia's do not need such incredibly bureaucratic rules and policies. There is no reason that the majority of editors cannot simply be reasonable. In fact we are more likely to get a more reasonable consensus including current arbitrators and any other participant, rather than the arbitrators alone. In any discussion, a more trustworthy user's opinion can always have more influence, if it is a concern that people need to be well-qualified to make decisions. User "probation" is unnecessary. If the "community" runs out of patience with a certain editor over a certain set of articles, they will more willingly give blocks ("preventative, not punitive," the author's favorite saying).
Permanent adminship removal is overkill. The same with anything else permanent. If a certain admin's behavior warrants permanent adminship removal, we can trust that the "community" will not trust the user in any future RfA. If a future RfA succeeds, it is probably for a good reason. For Wikipedians who like to avoid drama this should be appealing. WP:RfAr creates more drama, where users try to get others blocked, banned, have adminship removed, have probation, or even "strongly cautioned." There are so many cases where the only results are that certain users are reminded, cautioned, or admonished.
The proposal is that we bag the arbitration committee. RfC's, ANI, and (if it actually does help some users), the Mediation Committee are good enough to deal with any incidents. It is not necessary for sixteen sacred people to decide on so many issues. The way consensus on Wikipedia works is good enough. It is also proposed that we revoke all permanent decisions ever made by the Arbitration Committee, like permanent adminship removal, and make them indefinite. This essay might seem radical to many Wikipedians, but I would argue that they are radical.
After discussion, it is also propose that there be a residual ArbCom, where users can be elected the same way. They can deal with legal threats, certain CheckUser information, etc. which I imagine is quite a lot of work already. They would also grant CheckUser or Oversight functions as they have done. Conflicts can be dealt with possibly at ANI. A separate escalated-conflict page similar to ANI could be created, if that makes some feel better about it, but creating ANI subpages when a discussion gets quite long may also work. A point made by Ricky81682, this could be seen as a trend in Wikipedia dispute resolution. ArbCom was created after Jimbo Wales could not handle all disputes. The about 1,600 administrators instead of the sixteen arbitrators would be the ultimate step in dispute resolution.