Status as of 20:07 (UTC), Sunday, 11 August 2024 (
)
Editors are invited to leave feedback on proposed changes to the arbitration policy and ArbCom procedures. Amendments to the arbitration policy, initiated by ArbCom, are first approved by a majority vote of the Committee, and then ratified by majority support where at least 100 editors vote in favour of the change. Amendments of ArbCom procedure only require the ArbCom vote.
The proposed changes are typically one of three flavours:
This workshop phase will run until at least 16 August and may be extended if required. Should this workshop phase not be extended, it is expected that the relevant motions for the Committee will be posted by 19 August, and the amendments to the arbitration policy will be referred to the community for ratification shortly thereafter.
Old | New |
---|---|
The Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia has the following duties and responsibilities:
|
The Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia has the following duties and responsibilities:
|
I am sure that by adding this wording, there is no intention to undercut other channels of community-WMF communications that either exist or should exist.Thank you for clarifying. I'm still not sure it needs to be included in this section, however. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Old | New |
---|---|
Members of the Committee are appointed following annual elections organized and run by the community. Candidates must:
In exceptional circumstances, the Committee may call interim elections, in a format similar to that of the regular annual elections, if it determines that arbitrator resignations or inactivity have created an immediate need for additional arbitrators. |
Members of the Committee are appointed following annual elections organized and run by the community. Candidates must:
In exceptional circumstances, if it determines that arbitrator resignations or inactivity have created an immediate need for additional arbitrators, the Committee may call interim elections to elect new arbitrators to serve a term expiring at year's end. Concurrent with the annual elections, the Arbitration Committee will confirm that committee members with at least a year remaining on their terms intend to serve the remainder of their terms. Members who do not confirm will have their terms reduced to expire at year's end, and the seat will become open for election. |
There are any number of reasons an Arb might miss that deadline.This is a deadline they should know as soon as they are elected. Presumably an Arb would have to be inactive for quite some time to miss a long-known deadline (barring some sort of illness or accident, in which case the sudden stop in editing/responding would probably raise concerns amongst ArbCom).I like the appointment idea. I think ArbCom should retain discretion to select an editor with notice to the community and an opportunity for comment, in case something happens that raises concerns about an editor between the election and their appointment. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Since a 2021 motion, the Committee has been much more conservative in what sorts of information with privacy-related implications it retains.That it retains. Not which is provided to them. I would strike this addition: the expectation should be disclosure regardless. Izno (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
provided that these accounts are not eligible for extended-confirmed status- if the intent is to not require disclosure of unblocked accounts with fewer than 500 edits (and a month of activity), this does almost the exact opposite of its surface reading: paragraph two of the linked page says
legitimate alternate accounts of users who are extended confirmed on other accountsare eligible to be manually granted the status. In the worst case, an undeclared alt account that got to 500 edits by editing userspace and actually had the extended-confirmed group revoked meets the letter of the requirement here to not need disclosure: it doesn't have the status, won't get it automatically no matter its age or how many more edits are made with it, and as a presumably-illegitimate alt account, isn't eligible for a manual grant. —Cryptic 01:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Accounts which have been inactive in the past three yearsis to not require disclosure of accounts that have been inactive for the past three years, in their entirety; the current wording needlessly allows ruleslawyering to the effect of "This account was inactive in that time period (albeit only for part of it)". —Cryptic 23:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
in a format similar to that of the regular annual electionsbe explained? isaacl (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
the Committee may call interim electionswithout any qualification means that the committee controls the format of the interim election. It would, of course, face opposition if it created a new format, but I can see how it could claim that the specific circumstances in question call for a more rapid selection of interim arbitrators, and the self-selected sampling of the community involved at the time reaching a consensus in agreement. isaacl (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
committee members with at least a year remaining on their termsshould be something like
committee members whose terms extend beyond the start of the terms being contested at the upcoming election, as that will allow for any changes to term lengths or election timings in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
don't think this is .I think you forgot to finish a sentence here. I agree with your suggestion regarding term lengths. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
to elect new arbitrators to serve a term expiring at year's endmay be unnecessarily restrictive. Suppose, for example, that mid-2025 there are several resignations by arbitrators whose terms were to expire at the end of 2026. If things reach the level of urgency that a special election is necessary, it might be desirable to elect new arbitrators whose terms would expire at the end of 2026, but the proposed wording would only allow them to serve for a few months until the end of 2025 and the seats would then need to be put up for election again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Old | New |
---|---|
Arbitrators are expected to:
Any arbitrator who repeatedly or grossly fails to meet the expectations outlined above may be suspended or removed by Committee resolution supported by two-thirds of all arbitrators excluding:
|
Arbitrators are expected to:
Any arbitrator who repeatedly or grossly fails to meet the expectations outlined above may be suspended or removed by Committee resolution supported by two-thirds of all arbitrators[note 4] excluding:
As an alternative to removal or suspension, the Committee may pass a motion to formally warn an arbitrator by simple majority of active non-recused arbitrators about conduct falling short of the expectations for an arbitrator. It is expected that a copy of the motion, with redactions made should privacy considerations exist, be posted in a venue designated by the Committee (e.g. the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard). |
Any arbitrator who was inactive at least 30 days prior to beginning of Committee deliberations which led to a removal or suspension vote, and remains inactive until the end of voting.which would effectively perform the same thing in advance of the "can't get in touch". But I as it stands I think these tweaks make it far too easy to remove/suspend an arb. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
absentions shouldn't be excluded the way they are for most things– the intention of the proposed
recusals or abstentions do not reduce the number of votes required for removal or suspensionis that if someone abstains or recuses, the threshold for expulsion isn't lowered. This note isn't a change from the current state of affairs. If that isn't clear, then obviously we can take that on board and reword. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
The reason we haven't had to do a massive rewrite of ArbPol since 2011 is that it is mostly focused on important first principles. Those first principles can then be handled in a variety of ways by different arbcoms over time and those can be handled in the procedures. This revision takes away that gift from future committees by suddenly becoming more prescriptive in demanding that they use 2024 practices.If you want to add new language about favoring transparency I would be enthusiastically support. But also that doesn't seem like the small upkeep changes this effort is meant to be. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
all known methods of communicationto
using any contact information available to the Committeeis a good one. The existing wording could theoretically be construed to require the committee to take out advertisements in media covering the inactive arb's most recent known real-world location to try and get their attention; changing it to (talk page watcher) would completely take such off the table while not prohibiting attempts made via reasonable indirect contact methods (e.g. asking an active editor known to be in IRL contact with the inactive arb to pass on a message). Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Old | New |
---|---|
An arbitrator may recuse from any case, or from any aspect of a case, with or without explanation and is expected to do so where they have a significant conflict of interest. Typically, a conflict of interest includes significant personal involvement in the substance of the dispute or significant personal involvement with one of the parties. Previous routine editor, administrator or arbitrator interactions are not usually grounds for recusal. An editor who believes an arbitrator should recuse will first post a message on the arbitrator's talk page asking the arbitrator to recuse and giving reasons. Should the arbitrator not respond, or not recuse, the user may refer the request to the Committee for a ruling. Requests for recusal after a case has entered the voting stage will not be granted, except in extraordinary circumstances. |
An arbitrator may recuse from any case, or from any aspect of a case, with or without explanation and is expected to do so where they cannot be impartial or perceived as impartial. Examples of situations where an arbitrator may need to recuse includes situations where an arbitrator has significant personal involvement in the substance of the dispute or significant personal involvement with one of the parties. Previous routine editor, administrator or arbitrator interactions are not usually grounds for recusal. An editor who believes an arbitrator should recuse will first post a message on the main case talk page asking the arbitrator to recuse and giving reasons. Should the case not yet be formally opened, a formal request to recuse shall be posted as an additional statement at the case requests page. Should the arbitrator not respond, or not recuse, the user may refer the request to the Committee for a ruling. Requests for recusal after a case has entered the voting stage will not be granted, except in extraordinary circumstances. Exceptionally, requests for recusal will be accepted and adjudicated by email should there be compelling reasons to hear the request in private. |
perceivedmoves the goalposts, rather than the intended simple change in meaning. The prior text included the important term "significant" next to the phrase "conflict of interest". I think this should be adjusted. Izno (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
perceived as impartialis about whether we as a community can trust someone to make the right decision. In law, judges have to evaluate how a reasonable observer who knows the relevant facts would perceive their presiding over a case. If a reasonable person could think they were partial, they must recuse. Under U.S. law, the standard is: "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. § 455 (a). Significant is a much narrower standard, setting a higher bar for recusal.I'm indifferent to which standard we use, but I don't see the issue with broadening it because the rule of necessity doesn't really come into play with ArbCom. It has 13 members and they usually comes to a consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
shallis a bit onerous from an intent perspective; in the context of a document like this, you probably actually want the word "may" or "may instead". Izno (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Should the case not yet be formally opened, a formal request to recuse shall be posted as an additional statement at the case requests page.feels like it should be in procedures not ArbPol. Because where is a user supposed to go after a case but before voting starts? This all feels very in the weeds and thus a procedure rather than policy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
where they cannot be impartial or perceived as impartial.I agree with what I think the intent of the change is, but the wording allows for malcontents and others with axes to grind to disrupt the process by claiming that they do not perceive arbitrators XYZ as impartial. Even something like "reasonably perceived as impartial" would be an improvement. I agree with others above that the second paragraph belongs in procedures not policy. What is needed in policy is a reference to the procedures - something like "the Arbitration Committee shall maintain procedures editors may use to request arbitrators recuse. Arbitrators shall consider in good faith requests to recuse made in accordance with such procedures." Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Old | New |
---|---|
The Committee may create or modify its procedures, provided they are consistent with its scope; and may form subcommittees or designate individuals for particular tasks or roles. Where appropriate, the Committee may invite community comment on intended changes prior to implementing them. The Committee maintains a panel of clerks to assist with the smooth running of its functions. The clerks' functions include the administration of arbitration cases and management of all the Committee's pages and subpages; enforcing Committee decisions; implementing procedures; and enforcing good standards of conduct and decorum on the Committee's pages. |
The Committee may create or modify its procedures, provided they are consistent with its scope, and may form subcommittees or designate individuals for particular tasks or roles. In particular, arbitrators who have been designated as drafting arbitrators for formal cases (or other committee business) are considered primi inter pares on questions of case management for the cases on which they are drafters. Where appropriate, the Committee may invite community comment on intended changes prior to implementing them. The Committee maintains a panel of clerks to assist with the smooth running of its functions. The clerks' functions include the administration of arbitration cases and management of all the Committee's pages and subpages; enforcing Committee decisions; implementing procedures; and enforcing good standards of conduct and decorum on the Committee's pages. |
Where the Committee designates one or more arbitrators as drafters for a particular case, the drafter(s) are empowered to make day-to-day case management decisions for that case. (No opinion on whether this belongs in the policy or the procedures.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Old | New |
---|---|
The Committee has jurisdiction within the English Wikipedia. The Committee has no jurisdiction over: (i) official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff; (ii) Wikimedia projects other than the English Wikipedia; or (iii) conduct outside the English Wikipedia. The Committee may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors. The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time. |
The Committee has jurisdiction within the English Wikipedia. The Committee has no jurisdiction over official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff, nor jurisdiction to issue decisions regarding Wikimedia projects other than the English Wikipedia or any external venue outside the English Wikipedia. The Committee may consider the conduct by editors of the English Wikipedia in external venues, broadly construed, should such outside conduct affect or have the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors. The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time. |
take notice of conductprovision this replaces, then I would change
The Committee may considerto
The Committee has jurisdiction to impose sanctions for. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Old | New |
---|---|
(new subsection) |
To participate in arbitration proceedings, an individual is generally expected to be an extended-confirmed editor. Alternatively, editors who are not extended-confirmed will be eligible to participate in arbitration proceedings on the basis of being named parties or their conduct being material to the case. The Committee may, from time to time, waive its usual standing requirements, at its sole discretion. |
handle conduct matters involving holders of advanced permissions. If a non-EC user can't participate at ArbCom, they would have no official recourse against harmful condct by holders of advanced permission. Sure, most complaints by new users against admins are frivolous, but it has come up in the past. The case request that led to the sock block of Lourdes started in part because they bullied a new user who was just barely over the EC line. If they had had 499 edits instead of over 500, their complaint would have been no less valid. The option is given to be manually approved by ArbCom, but quite frankly that would be incredibly daunting for a new user and likely discourage them from even trying. Pinguinn 🐧 09:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Old | New |
---|---|
|
|
Appeals by blocked, banned, or similarly restricted users are heard at a designated on-wiki venue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Old | New |
---|---|
Decisions are reached by a majority vote of active, non-recused arbitrators. An arbitrator whose term expires while a case is pending may remain active on that case until its conclusion. Newly appointed arbitrators may become active on any matter before the Committee with immediate effect from the date of their appointment. Statements may be added to case pages by any interested editor. Editors are expected to respond to statements about themselves; failure to do so may result in decisions being made without their participation. All editors are required to act reasonably, civilly, and with decorum on arbitration case pages, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so. |
Decisions are reached by a majority vote of active, non-recused arbitrators. An arbitrator whose term expires while a case is pending may remain active on that case until its conclusion. Newly appointed arbitrators become active on any matter before the Committee when their terms begin. Statements may be added to case pages by any interested editor having the standing to do so. Editors are expected to respond to statements about themselves; failure to do so may result in decisions being made without their participation. All editors are required to act reasonably, civilly, and with decorum on arbitration case pages, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so. |
may become activeto
become activeis significant because it requires new arbitrators to familiarise themselves with all aspects (public and private) of all ongoing matters, even those that are almost completely resolved. This will hold up matters for little to no gain. For example, the Gamergate case was ongoing but largely complete when my term started, I hadn't been following it in detail and hadn't seen any of the private evidence so chose not to become active on it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Old | New |
---|---|
In all proceedings, admissible evidence includes:
Evidence from official mediation is admissible only with the express prior written consent of the Mediation Committee.[note 5] Evidence based on private communications (including, but not limited to, other websites, forums, chat rooms, IRC logs, email correspondence) is admissible only by prior consent of the Committee and only in exceptional circumstances. Evidence may be submitted privately, but the Committee normally expects evidence to be posted publicly unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. The Committee will decide whether to admit each submission of private evidence on its own merits and, if admitted, the evidence will be considered at a private hearing. |
In all proceedings, admissible evidence includes at a minimum:
It is expected that evidence is submitted by default in public. Should there be compelling reasons to submit evidence privately (e.g. private communications or other privacy, legal, or similar reasons), the Committee will decide whether to admit each submission of private evidence on its own merit. Should a proceeding be designated as a private or hybrid hearing, the Committee will generally accept private evidence submissions. While there is no formal hard limit on the age of admissible evidence (i.e. when a given edit, log entry, or other communication, broadly construed, was made), it is nonetheless expected that evidence submissions privilege more recent events unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary (e.g. to establish an editor's long-term pattern of conduct). The Committee may at its sole discretion impose a formal hard limit on the age of admissible evidence on a case-by-case basis, or by amending its formal procedures. |
Old | New |
---|---|
Once adopted by the Committee, this policy will undergo formal ratification through a community referendum and will enter into force once it receives majority support, with at least one hundred editors voting in favour of adopting it. Until this policy is ratified, the existing arbitration policy remains in effect. Amendments to this policy require an identical ratification process. Proposed amendments may be submitted for ratification only after being approved by a majority vote of the Committee, or having been requested by a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing. The Committee is responsible for formulating its own processes and procedures under this policy, which do not require ratification. |
Proposed amendments may be submitted for ratification only after being approved by a majority vote of the Committee, or having been requested by a petition signed by at least one hundred editors having standing to participate in arbitration proceedings within 30 days. A proposed amendment will enter into force once it receives majority support, with at least one hundred editors having standing to participate in arbitration proceedings voting in favour. Ratification votes must run for at least 7 days and may not run longer than 30 days. The Committee is responsible for formulating its own processes and procedures under this policy, which do not require ratification. |
Old | New |
---|---|
Access to CheckUser and Oversight permissions is given sparingly. The permissions reflect the high trust placed in the holder. They are not granted in perpetuity and holders are expected to use them regularly for the benefit of the project. Accordingly, the minimum activity level for each tool (based on the preceding three months' activity) shall be five logged actions. Consideration will be given for activity and actions not publicly logged, such as responding to requests on the CheckUser or Oversight VRTS queues; participation on list discussions; activity at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations; responding to account creation requests; and responding to CheckUser or Oversight requests on administrative noticeboards, UTRS queue, and user talk pages. These activity requirements do not apply to: (a) sitting members of the Arbitration Committee; (b) holders using the permissions for audit purposes; or (c) holders who have temporarily relinquished access, including CheckUsers or Oversighters who accept appointment to the Ombuds Commission.[1] Holders of the permissions are also expected to:
Holders who do not comply with the activity and expectation requirements – or who mark their accounts "semi-retired", "retired", or "inactive", or who announce their effective retirement by other means – may have their permissions removed by the Arbitration Committee. Prior to removal of access, two attempts will be made to contact the holder using the email address they provided to the Committee. Permissions will usually be reinstated on the following bases:
Requests for reinstatement for any other reason will be considered on a case by case basis. Note that Stewards and Wikimedia Foundation staff granted CheckUser and Oversight permissions by the WMF are outside of the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee. |
(wholesale rewrite; split into three subsections) |
Old | New |
---|---|
(new subsection) |
Functionaries are defined as (i) present arbitrators and former arbitrators in good standing who retain access to the functionaries mailing list; and (ii) holders of the CheckUser or Oversight permissions. Access to CheckUser and Oversight permissions is given sparingly. This access reflects the high trust placed in the holder, and the need to safeguard sensitive information by limiting the number of users with access. They are not granted in perpetuity and holders are expected to use them regularly for the benefit of the project. |
Old | New |
---|---|
(new subsection) |
Interested parties may apply for functionary access by emailing the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en-c Following careful review of applications, if the Arbitration Committee feels that it may consider appointing the candidate, it will forward the name to the functionaries-en mailing for further vetting. Should the Committee still feel that it may consider appointing the candidate, a nomination statement supplied by the candidate will be posted on-wiki for community consultation. After the community consultation period, the Committee will formally vote on an internal motion to appoint the candidate to the given functionary role. The high level of trust accorded to functionaries necessitates a very clear consensus amongst arbitrators to appoint; by convention, prospective functionaries are appointed by a supermajority of at least 70% of active, non-recused arbitrators. Restoration of permissions by expedited procedure only requires a simple majority of active, non-recused arbitrators. Functionary access may be removed for inactivity or for cause. The Committee accepts complaints about functionaries, and may open investigations should complaints have merit. Given that incidents involving the use of functionary access tend to be broadly non-public in nature, such cases will generally take the form of private proceedings. As a key function of the Committee is to manage functionary access, the Committee generally has an investigatory role in such cases and may initiate an investigation sua sponte. Unlike most arbitration proceedings, this involves at least one arbitrator who collects and submits evidence for collective review. As such a submission of evidence by an individual arbitrator is in support of this key Committee function, it does not compel recusal from further participation in the matter. While functionary access can be removed for cause on the grounds of misuse of permissions, the Arbitration Committee has also held that functionaries are held to a higher standard of behavior than non-functionaries, especially in issues related to their area of responsibility, and thus removal for cause can be initiated in the absence of misuse of permissions. Functionary access, in whole or in part, may be removed by a simple majority of active, non-recused arbitrators. Removal of functionary access on the grounds of inactivity does not require a formal vote, provided that no arbitrators have objected to removal on those grounds; the procedures for inactivity are described separately. |
Old | New |
---|---|
(new subsection) |
Functionary activity is assessed holistically and regularly reviewed by the Committee. Functionaries are expected to be meaningfully engaged with the project and within their specific functionary role. By convention, a given quantity of logged actions or mailing list messages is not considered to be a hard rule; however, the following guidelines are used by the Committee as a rough baseline for activity:
A variety of other actions may be considered as proof of activity, such as participation in relevant fora like mailing lists, VRT queues, or other on-wiki venues. The Committee will usually accept assurances from functionaries to improve activity, provided there is no repeated pattern of such assurances. Conversely, the Committee may consider removal of access for functionaries, who while meeting role-specific guidelines, are not meaningfully engaged with the project or their specific functionary role, or are otherwise gaming the guidelines. Removal of access may be considered by the Committee for all functionary roles or for specific functionary roles, based on the specifics of the inactivity. Functionary activity requirements do not apply to sitting members of the Arbitration Committee or Ombuds Commission. They likewise do not apply Wikimedia Foundation staff granted CheckUser and Oversight permissions by the WMF, who are outside of the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee. Functionaries are encouraged, but not obligated, to notify the Arbitration Committee of planned significant absences and their likely duration and may relinquish some or all of their access during planned prolonged periods of inactivity. Prior to removing access, functionaries will be contacted by the Committee by email; they are expected to respond within seven days to email communications from the Committee regarding their activity or use of permissions. Permissions will usually be reinstated on the following bases:
For the restoration of permissions, a simple majority of active, non-recused arbitrators is required. When functionary permissions have been removed for cause, or issues have arisen since the permissions were voluntarily relinquished or removed for inactivity, the user will have to go through the usual appointments process. |
I think this should probably be a sentence at most. The details of our CUOS appointment process can probably be left to the appointment process itself. Unless we're deliberately trying to subsume the (from-memory) murky policy status of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight, which duplicates this (and more clearly to boot)?... Izno (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Following careful review of applications, if the Arbitration Committee feels that it may consider appointing the candidate, it will forward the name to the functionaries-en mailing for further vetting. Should the Committee still feel that it may consider appointing the candidate, a nomination statement supplied by the candidate will be posted on-wiki for community consultation. After the community consultation period, the Committee will formally vote on an internal motion to appoint the candidate to the given functionary role. The high level of trust accorded to functionaries necessitates a very clear consensus amongst arbitrators to appoint; by convention, prospective functionaries are appointed by a supermajority of at least 70% of active, non-recused arbitrators.
Some suggestions:Functionary access may be removed for inactivity or for cause. The Committee accepts complaints about functionaries, and may open investigations should complaints have merit. Given that incidents involving the use of functionary access tend to be broadly non-public in nature, such cases will generally take the form of private proceedings. As a key function of the Committee is to manage functionary access, the Committee generally has an investigatory role in such cases and may initiate an investigation sua sponte. Unlike most arbitration proceedings, this involves at least one arbitrator who collects and submits evidence for collective review. As such a submission of evidence by an individual arbitrator is in support of this key Committee function, it does not compel recusal from further participation in the matter.
As a key function of the Committee is to manage functionary accessThis is fluff, we already know it is.
Unlike most arbitration proceedings, this involves at least one arbitrator who collects and submits evidence for collective review. As such a submission of evidence by an individual arbitrator is in support of this key Committee function, it does not compel recusal from further participation in the matter.Why? The committee has always worked well enough, and you already have the power to form arbitrary subcommittees and assign tasks like drafting elsewhere to do work within your scope. I would simply remove this. The notion of a recusal in this work seems like a miss, and this feels like legislating from some single case (of which I know not) rather than a broad observation of need to refine the procedure. A comparison might be he modern use of cautionary emails to administrators straying from the path, which today requires no recusal.
As with the above, some suggestions:While functionary access can be removed for cause on the grounds of misuse of permissions, the Arbitration Committee has also held that functionaries are held to a higher standard of behavior than non-functionaries, especially in issues related to their area of responsibility, and thus removal for cause can be initiated in the absence of misuse of permissions. Functionary access, in whole or in part, may be removed by a simple majority of active, non-recused arbitrators. Removal of functionary access on the grounds of inactivity does not require a formal vote, provided that no arbitrators have objected to removal on those grounds; the procedures for inactivity are described separately.
While functionary access can be removed for cause on the grounds of misuse of permissions,This is more fluff. "The AC has held..." is sufficient.
and thus removal for cause can be initiated in the absence of misuse of permissions.should probably tie back to the kinds of proceedings rather than say "initiated".
No committee in recent years has required the "quick re-up user" to follow a process like this, and it certainly didn't happen on my term. The flexibility seems sufficient in the current version of the procedures (which is to say nothing of the quick re-up user incidentally), so I don't really get why the committee thinks a warning (I guess it's a warning) needs to be added here. Can you shed some light? Izno (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)however, the Committee may determine, at its sole discretion, that a user must go through the formal appointment process (e.g. because the removal of permissions was for cause)
Old | New |
---|---|
The procedure for handling complaints related to CheckUser or Oversight use is as follows:
An arbitrator's service as an auditor is part of their official service as an arbitrator, and therefore shall not constitute grounds for recusal in a subsequent matter involving the complainant or the subject of the complaint. |
(delete or hat) |
Old | New |
---|---|
(new) |
A case will be rejected when it meets all of the following criteria:
If the case request is clearly premature, malformed, or otherwise inappropriate, an arbitrator, or a clerk on the advice of an arbitrator, may summarily remove the case request. |
Old | New |
---|---|
(new) |
Drafting arbitrators (drafters) are considered primi inter pares on questions of case management. General procedural matters (e.g. word limit extensions) may be resolved by consensus of drafting arbitrators without referral to the Committee as a whole. Drafting arbitrators will propose a case structure and any case-specific rules for the Committee to accept at the outset; however, drafting arbitrators have broad authority to set case-specific rules during the case (e.g. enforce thread discussions, set a word limit for participants) to enforce the expectations of behavior during a case. Drafting arbitrators are responsible for preparing an initial draft of a proposed decision, which is circulated among the rest of the Committee before it is posted on-wiki. The Committee as a whole retains the authority, via simple majority of active, non-recused arbitrators, to replace drafting arbitrators in case or to override case management decisions made by drafting arbitrators. |
I would just hateOn the other hand, there's been at least one case in modern times that needed more cooking, and a requirement rather than internal should-ism would have helped that case. I think I otherwise agree? Izno (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
to replace drafting arbitrators in caseThis reads like some words got dropped. Izno (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The Committee as a whole retains the authority, via simple majority of active, non-recused arbitrators, to replace drafting arbitrators in case or to override case management decisions made by drafting arbitrators.They're not really primi inter pares if they can be replaced or overriden by simple majority vote. If the intent is really to make them primi inter pares, the rule should require a two-thirds majority vote. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Old | New |
---|---|
Once a case has been accepted, the Arbitration Committee will instruct the clerks on the name, structure, and timetable for a case so they may create the applicable pages. The name is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to be drafting arbitrator(s) for the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as a designated point of contact for any matters arising. The standard structure of a case will include the following phases and timetable:
The timetable and structure of the case may be adjusted (e.g. a phase may be extended, closed early, added or removed) and case-specific rules may be altered, by the initiative of the Committee, at the discretion of the drafting arbitrator(s) during the case. Drafting arbitrator(s) shall also have broad authority to set case-specific rules regarding the running of the phases (e.g. enforce threaded discussions, set a word limit for participants in the workshop phase) to enforce the expectation of behavior during a case. Parties to the case may also petition for changes to the timetable and structure for a case. |
Once a case has been accepted, the Arbitration Committee will instruct the clerks on the name, structure, and timetable for a case so they may create the applicable pages. The name is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to be drafting arbitrator(s) for the case. The standard structure of a case will include the following phases and timetable:
The timetable and structure of the case may be adjusted (e.g. a phase may be extended, closed early, added or removed) and case-specific rules may be altered, by the initiative of the Committee, at the discretion of the drafting arbitrator(s) during the case. Parties to the case may also petition for changes to the timetable and structure for a case. |
Workshops have never had any actual basis in policy... The text on the left in the table is the current policy, which has this text:
A workshop phase, that ends one week after the evidence phase closes;So, I find your take... odd. At best. Izno (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Old | New |
---|---|
(new) |
Private evidence, generally defined as copies of private communications or material unsuitable for public dissemination on privacy, legal, or similar grounds, is accepted at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, generally within the scope of private or hybrid proceedings only. The Committee will aim to base decisions on public evidence to the extent possible, and endeavour to accept private evidence only as absolutely necessary. During hybrid proceedings, should a private evidence submission be composed entirely of material suitable for public discussion, the submitting editor shall be directed to post the evidence on-wiki for it be admitted. Additionally, during hybrid proceedings, the drafting arbitrators will endeavour on a best-effort basis to post a summary of the private evidence submissions, made suitable for public discussion, to the case evidence page, after the conclusion of the evidence phase. Parties about whom such evidence is shared may be, relative to non-parties, preferentially granted opportunities by the drafting arbitrators to respond, whether through the evidence or the workshop. A case designated as a private proceeding will generally not have a public evidence or workshop phase, and will tend to be heard in camera. In such cases, the drafting arbitrators shall have wide latitude to issue guidance on evidence submission. |
Old | New |
---|---|
Arbitrators are presumed active unless they are on a wikibreak, have not participated in arbitration within the past week, or have informed the Committee of their absence. An inactive arbitrator may become active by voting on any aspect of a proceeding. An active arbitrator may become inactive by so stating, in which case their votes will be struck through and discounted. |
Arbitrator activity is indicated at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Members. To mark themselves as active or inactive, arbitrators may edit that page accordingly, or they may inform the Committee or clerks by email or any other means used by the Committee or clerks to communicate. An arbitrator may also be marked as active or inactive on a given matter independently of the default activity indicated at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Members. An inactive arbitrator becomes active on a given matter through any participation in it, unless the arbitrator specifically requests to be inactive on related votes. The arbitration policy stipulates that arbitrators advise the rest of the Committee about inactivity will likely last more than a week. In the event that an arbitrator has been inactive in all arbitration-related fora, broadly construed but with particular emphasis on the mailing list and on-wiki arbitration venues, another arbitrator may mark the inactive arbitrator as such and inform the rest of the Committee by email. Should such a change mean that motions or other votes become passing, the rest of the Committee must be informed by email, and a minimum 48 hour wait is required before enacting such motions or votes. |
about inactivity will likelylooks like it's missing a word. —Cryptic 01:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
or any other means used by the Committee or clerks to communicateshould be stricken. Izno (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Old | New |
---|---|
Any arbitrator who has not given prior notice of absence and who fails to post to the usual venues for seven consecutive days is deemed inactive in all matters with, where practical, retrospective effect to the date of the last known post. |
(delete or hat) |
Old | New |
---|---|
(new) |
When a vote fails to reach a requisite threshold for action (e.g. net-4, absolute majority) within two weeks of the first vote being cast, an individual arbitrator may move to close the vote as unsuccessful. If there are no objections after 48 hours have elapsed since the proposal to close, the vote is deemed unsuccessful. |
An arbitrator may also be marked as active or inactive on a given matter independently of the default activity indicated at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Members.is what I was keying off, where someone is inactive but status on the relevant page onwiki is either deliberately or accidentally not changed to say they are active (and indeed, arbs do say they are independently active on some or another things). Izno (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
If there are no objectionsWhat happens if there are? What is a legitimate objection? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Old | New |
---|---|
An editor who is indefinitely topic-banned or otherwise restricted from editing in a topic area under an Arbitration Committee decision may request an amendment to lift or modify the restriction after an appropriate time period has elapsed. A reasonable minimum time period for such a request will ordinarily be six months, unless the decision provides for a different time or the Committee subsequently determines otherwise. In considering such a request, the Committee will give significant weight to, among other factors, whether the editor in question has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project. |
(delete or hat) |
Old | New |
---|---|
If an editor is subject to any sort of Arbitration Committee parole or restriction, and wishes to start a new account or to change their username with a suppressed redirect from the old name, they must notify the Committee of this before they proceed with editing under said new account/name. Failure to disclose this, if discovered, is grounds for a ban from the project. |
(delete or hat) |
Old | New |
---|---|
The procedure for handling incoming mail to arbcom-en is as follows: Once incoming mail has cleared list moderation, each message shall be acknowledged with a standard message and processed by the coordinating arbitrator or their deputy within 24 hours of receipt:
|
The Arbitration Committee intends to promptly acknowledge incoming email correspond on a best-effort basis. The Committee generally accepts emails to its arbcom-en mailing list (arbcom-en
Incoming email is generally reviewed by the Committee as a whole. A rough consensus of arbitrators is sufficient to deem a matter resolved, provided no formal motions or votes are proposed. The Committee may, at its sole discretion, by ways of a formal vote, any internal procedure, or accepted convention, designated some matters which may be summarily resolved by a single arbitrator. Examples of such matters include but are not limited to:
|
This needs a rewrite or some additional words or both. Izno (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)The Committee may, at its sole discretion, by ways of a formal vote, any internal procedure, or accepted convention, designated some matters which may be summarily resolved by a single arbitrator. Examples of such matters include but are not limited to:
Old | New |
---|---|
The Committee will consider and adopt resolutions as follows:
Resolutions intended for public dissemination will be published to the Arbitration Committee noticeboard. Internal resolutions will be retained in the Committee's internal records. |
The Committee will consider and adopt resolutions as follows:
Resolutions intended for public dissemination will be published to the Arbitration Committee noticeboard. Internal resolutions will be retained in the Committee's internal records. |