This is a draft document only, and is not a policy, procedure, or statement by the Arbitration Committee. Comments by anyone, including arbitrators, are invited on the talk page.

Draft for discussion and improvement

What we do with the mail we receive from third parties

• Approximately 95-98% of emails that come through the moderation queues are some variety of spam, and they are discarded. Senders should always include a clear subject line that identifies the subject of the email; emails with unclear subject lines, particularly ones similar to those seen on spam emails (e.g. "Guess what?", "You need to know this", etc) may be discarded. Senders normally should receive an email confirming receipt within 48 hours of sending the original message.
• Emails requesting changes to content will generally be referred to the Volunteer response team (OTRS), either directly, or by a return email recommending that the correspondent write to OTRS
• Emails requesting suppression will normally be referred directly to the Oversight mailing list/OTRS queue, if not acted upon immediately by an arbitrator. If acted upon immediately, a copy of the response will be sent to the Oversight-L mailing list.
• Emails requesting checkuser/sockpuppetry investigations will normally be referred to either the Functionaries mailing list or to one or more specific checkusers.
• Emails pertaining to legal matters outside of the scope of the Arbitration Committee, as well as those relating to threats of harm to self or others, will normally be referred to the WMF Legal and Community liaison; dependent on the nature of the email, this may be referred to the "emergency@wmf" email address.
• Requests for changes to blocks/indefinite bans placed by administrators that are not directly related to an Arbitration Committee decision or arbitration enforcement will be referred to the BASC mailing list.
• Requests for changes to blocks/bans labeled as "checkuser" or "oversighter" blocks, and those that directly relate to an Arbcom decision or AE are heard by the committee as a whole, and emails pertaining to such requests will remain on the main mailing list
• Requests for review of the actions of a checkuser or oversighter will normally be referred to the Audit Subcommittee (AUSC)
• Emails relating to a currently open case are handled in accord with the arbitration committee policy; except for information that includes non-public personal information or information covered under the privacy policy, the sender will be encouraged to post on-wiki. Non-public submissions of evidence will normally be provided to parties of a case (with sender's email address removed) if it is to be considered in the case proper, to permit the other parties to respond.
• Emails relating to closed cases will normally result in a referral to the on-wiki Arbitration enforcement page, unless private or non-public personal information is involved.
• Other emails will be addressed as appropriate to the situation; they will not normally be forwarded without permission from the correspondent.

Internal discussion emails

• Arbitrators may paraphrase or quote from their own emails sent to any arbitration-related mailing list, though private or non-public personal information must be redacted. Quotes should not include excerpts from the emails of others, without the permission of the original sender(s).
• The results of an internal discussion that leads to a decision on a matter may be paraphrased in order to post the related motion or publicly report the information. The voting results of formal motions should normally be published. Usual practice for this paraphrasing, in the absence of standardized phrasing, is to post a draft on the applicable mailing list or on the arbitration wiki for comment and copy editing by peers before publishing. Examples: Level I or II removal of permissions; removal of permissions for inactivity; appointments to Checkuser, Oversight or AUSC; decisions to amend blocks/bans.
• The results of an internal discussion that leads to a decision on a matter may be paraphrased to respond by email to one of more correspondents. If the response is not a routine one for which a standard response is being issued, common practice is to post a draft on the applicable mailing list or on the arbitration wiki for comment and copy editing by peers before publishing for complex matters, or to respond with a notation that other arbitrators may comment further.
• NOTE: THIS SECTION CONTINUES TO BE UNDER DISCUSSION Other emails sent to the mailing list by arbitrators may be published if approved by a majority of active, unrecused arbitrators, or with the permission of the sending arbitrator(s).
  • (proposed addendum) Emails sent to the mailing list by other parties may be published if permission is given by all non-arbitrator parties, and a majority of active, unrecused arbitrators.