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:

1. An update to written policy or procedure, to reflect modern practices;
2. Deletion of disused portions of procedure;
3. Addition of policy or procedure, either to codify existing practice, or to address identified gaps.

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.

• Update to reflect typical modern practice.

• On the one hand, I think ArbCom has been successfully failing to uphold ArbPol by abdicating on its duty and responsibility to handle blocks. On the other hand it has clear community consensus so that needs to be reflected. That said, I would still oppose its removal altogether with no replacement because I think the current ArbCom check on community processes run amok is healthy and not one ArbCom abuses. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  +1, more or less. Izno (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I too generally agree. It's no longer as central or extensive a function as it once was, but it does still exist. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: Barkeep49 is referring here to old clause 2, which I agree is still useful. Paul August ☎ 10:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "To liaise" is awfully vague. While this does occur, I don't think ArbCom should be doing so without any bounds whatsoever, as this is currently framed. Izno (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Recently an arbitrator explicitly stated that the arbitration committee is not a way for the community to communicate with the Wikimedia Foundation. Thus I don't think there's a common understanding that this aspect is part of modern practice—at least not without bounds, as mentioned by Izno. isaacl (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I may be behind the times here, but is the intent with the changes to block/ban appeals to officially make them entirely the community's remit? Or is the expectation that a large number would still be heard by ARBCOM under "matters unsuitable for public discussion"? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The idea is for ArbCom to hear only the appeals that the community is not able hear. See note in #2 of the old policy for more information. Ian P. Tetriss (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the new clause 5, is the intent that ArbCom has a duty to liaise with WMF regarding its own mutual interests, or the community's interests. If it's the former, I don't have an issue with it, but I'm not sure it's necessary to include in the scope and responsibilities section. Presumably, ArbCom has an institutional interest in communicating with WMF (and I would add the movement more broadly). If it's the latter, ArbCom should not be given the "duty and responsibility" of communicating with the WMF on the community's behalf. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding appeals from blocked and banned users, while this is an authority the Committee has used infrequently, I believe the ability of a long-term-blocked or community-banned user to appeal to the ArbCom should remain. The community decision-making processes such as an AN are robust, but they are not infallible, and it is desirable to have some safety-valve intended for ususual cases of serious injustice. As for liaison with the WMF, it is worthwhile to acknowledge the periodic communications that take place in which arbitrators and WMF personnel address matters of mutual importance, as to which non-public information is sometimes involved. 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. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• Regarding the new clause 2, would that mean that only ArbCom, and not the community, would now be able to review conduct issues by users holding advanced permissions? This might have the unintended effect of turning advanced permissions into a shield from day-to-day accountability, given the entry bar for an ArbCom case to be accepted. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with this. So long as the clause means that ArbCom doesn't have exclusive jurisdiction, I think it's fine. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, though I am concerned that the proposed text would mean more case requests that have not gone through Community attempts at resolution. I strongly believe that the Community is capable of (or at the very least, should be capable of) resolving trusted users' conduct issues without unnecessary Committee intervention. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would think ArbCom would probably just turn down cases where their intervention is unnecessary and direct the filer to AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A confirmation procedure for the second year of a typical term has been an idea floated around since last year; the context for the proposal is tied into handling arbitrator long-term inactivity. The other major change is to loosen the requirements for account disclosure. Since a 2021 motion, the Committee has been much more conservative in what sorts of information with privacy-related implications it retains. This proposal is somewhat controversial amongst the arbitrators. On one hand, the current wording means that deciding if an old account is relevant is up to the community or the Committee as appropriate; on the other hand, old accounts with few edits are not unlikely to have been abandoned for privacy reasons.

• I think going from an optional opt-out to a mandatory opt-in is a bad idea. There are any number of reasons an Arb might miss that deadline. And if we're going to amend this, I'd much rather give ArbCom the power to appoint a community member who received over 60% in the most recent ArbCom election rather than call a special election, which ArbCom has not ever done and which for a whole bunch of structural reasons (which I'll bring out if/when this goes to community ratification but which ArbCom can already see) I don't think it ever will. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ... +1. Izno (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If there were to be a change regarding a short-handed committee, my suggestion would be to define the concept of a reserve arbitrator, and leave it to the community to decide how to incorporate the selection of reserve arbitrators into the annual election. I would also amend the policy to defer to the arbitration committee to define procedures for activating a reserve arbitrator. This would give the committee the flexibility, should it desire, to enact a rotating system where reserve arbitrators could be rotated into active service. isaacl (talk) 07:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  And as it stands now someone who doesn't want to continue on has an even later deadline to make the decision. This feels like a "gotcha" rather than something which would genuinely help the committee. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that what will matter for the "enforced retirement" clause is its implementation, so there may be some way to implement this to reduce concerns about missing deadlines. I have mixed feelings on opt-in vs opt-out: I fear that a soft retirement clause without teeth will lead to the Committee being unwilling to remove members that haven't indicated that they want to continue (because we might say, "oh they've only been inactive for the past few months, but was really active at the start of the year"). A procedure in place makes it a bit more "no-fault". Will continue to mull this over. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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 accounts are 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)[reply]
  • More nitpicking here, I'm afraid: the obvious intent of Accounts which have been inactive in the past three years is 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)[reply]
• I think it would be inequitable to only require responsiveness from an arbitrator at one point in the year. If there is going to be a change in policy on this front, then I think it should cover unexplained lack of responsiveness at any time during the year. I suspect, though, that managing this would be logistically challenging for the committee. isaacl (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Can the rationale for removing in a format similar to that of the regular annual elections be explained? isaacl (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My guess is because the format of emergency elections is explicitly defined at WP:ACERULES (second bullet). Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to hear from the committee regarding their reasoning. Yes, I am aware of the RfC discussions that created the current format for emergency elections. But without the constraint that the selection process should be similar to the annual election, it's possible that a different procedure could gain favour. isaacl (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) I don't have particularly strong feelings on this but I think that the former text could be construed as mandating an ACERFC and commission RfC etc. The Community has already spelled out what it wants in terms of emergency elections (as pointed out by Thryduulf), so in a way we don't need to specify that format in ARBPOL. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  With the current wording, there is a minimum standard of sorts on the format of the interim selection process. Removing it means that the community would be free to choose a method that is less stringent. isaacl (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The emergency procedure arguably already is less stringent with the removal of ACERFC and the commission RfC. I think that it is dubious to say that it is in the same format when half of the items (and the most time-consuming elements) aren't there. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The interim election itself would follow all of the previous rules established by the elections RfCs, with the specific exceptions noted, thus leveraging all of the past agreements on implementation. Without any guidance in the arbitration policy, the committee (or the community, if the committee handed over responsibility to it) could choose a completely different format for interim elections. For example, it could say in the interest of expediency, the interim election will be an on-wiki instant runoff vote amongst the candidates who achieved the 50% one-year standard in the last election but were not elected. isaacl (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think the committee would get to decide at all in the revised version? I think it would be entirely up to the community to decide what interim elections look like and the committee could either call one under those terms, or not (or call one and know the community would then decide those terms but I'm presuming the ACERULES bullet stays or is replaced by some new procedure). And I think that's all a good thing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To me, the Committee may call interim elections without 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)[reply]

• I generally agree with most of the above regarding alternate accounts, I don't think this is . Regarding arbitrator activity, I agree with the goal here but I'm uncertain this is the way to go about it per Isaacl. At minimum committee members with at least a year remaining on their terms should 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Yes I did. I can't remember atm what I was going to say so I've struck it. If it comes back to me then I'll make a new comment. Thryduulf (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I hope it remains a moot point in any event, the words to elect new arbitrators to serve a term expiring at year's end may 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)[reply]
• So, for some context, the three-year rule was something I just kind of made up when doing the first ever privacy audit on the ArbWiki. At that time, every single disclosure of an alternate account since 2009 was still retained there,not just of arbitrators but anyone who had ever disclosed an alt account to the committee, or had been discovered by the committee to be using one, even if not in breach of the socking policy. So, I decided on the fly that if the alt account hadn't been used in three years, the committee didn't need to retain a record on the arbwiki. Such disclosures would sill be accesible in the mailing list archives, and technically in the history of deleted pages on the arbwiki, but you'd have to know exactly what you were looking for. I fully support the idea that the committee does not need a permanent record of alt accounts that are not being used, and would suggest this go beyond just the elections and extend to all such disclosures. I guess I do get why there is a carve out for ECP alt accounts though. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a minor change for the procedure to remove or suspend an arbitrator, to account for long-term arbitrator absences. A larger change is the addition of a formal warning mechanism.

• The idea that ArbCom didn't already have the power to warn an arb via a majority vote is a very bizarre one to me and not one I recall being raised during the 3 most recent discussions where arb removal was on the table (though obviously I no longer have access to the archives/arbwiki). Why does it need to be in ArbPol?
  Procedurally I also think removing or suspending an arb should be really hard and think absentions shouldn't be excluded the way they are for most things; I think a better written version for recusals could be fair since the arb under discussion already doesn't count. For #3 I would recommend it read 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)[reply]

  +1 to the first paragraph, but I think the motivation here is more about the transparency aspect than it is about expressing this as an option. Izno (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My reading of a lot of the proposed changes is that they were made with transparency in mind (I have a feeling that this is going to be a theme I return to throughout this consultation). Part of my takeaway from the 2021 warning issue is that the lack of codified procedure for making such a warning (such as whether it would be public) caused issues down the line for the 2023 and 2024 committees. A codified expectation for public dissemination (and the threshold by which we would achieve that) simplifies things and would reduce the perception that things were being made up ad hoc.

  Barkeep, I don't really follow 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 suspension is 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)[reply]

  I mean you're the ones who are trying to put warnings into ARBPOL. Codifying transparency in this one particular way is part of my general criticism of this effort that I posted on the talk page 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)[reply]

  Yes, that is important and we are thinking about it. Perhaps that vagueness is a feature and not a bug, but I am wary on overly relying on that when it makes things very unclear for outsiders. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Arbitration Policy will always be interpreted and so how that happens is important. This committee trying to enshrine its preferences upon future committees is, I repeat, just a categorical mistake and the wrong way to happen. Instead we should look at what's already happened. Some of the stuff that is vague has meant that different committees have been able to respond to the problems of their days in ways that make sense at that time; they've had enough options to carry out their duties and responsibilities. Other vaguness in the current policy isn't really vague anymore because it's widely understood how it's been used over time. And, crucially, some of the stuff that is vague wasn't even really concerning when this passed in 2011 because through the multiple iterations and discussions there was alignment, to a real degree, on what it meant when it was passed. That, for me, is the right way to solve the vagueness problem - where it is even a problem because future committees deserve the same freedom to respond that this committee has enjoyed - not the approach taken here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The change from all known methods of communication to using any contact information available to the Committee is 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)[reply]
• I don't have a problem with making the availability of formal warnings explicit, nor do I think the changes make it unreasonably easy to remove an arb. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Although I agree that the committee can choose to warn an arbitrator, I don't think it's necessary to codify this one scenario into the arbitration policy. The committee is already empowered to enact a wide range of sanctions, and a warning is a very commonplace one. isaacl (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• My ears are burning. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seriously though, absenteeism has been a serious problem on the committee for quite some time, and I do think the committee kind of bungled the way it handled its dealings with me, so I'm glad there is interest in trying to address both of these issues. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove "conflict of interest" wording because that term has acquired a strong connection to the contents of WP:COI. Adjust request for recusals process to reflect on how it has evolved to work in practice.

• perceived moves 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)[reply]

  +1. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The rationale for including perceived as impartial is 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)[reply]

• I think shall is 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)[reply]

  It seems like it's intended to prevent gamesmanship through forcing last minute recusals. Is this actually an issue in ArbCom cases? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  On the case talk page, as it states in the sentence beforehand. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh. My goof there that you choose to note one change with underlying but not another change so I didn't notice you decided to change that as well. I think the idea that a request for recusal should be made personally and directly to the arb not as some public process. This part is one of the few places where the community are expected to show some humanity towards arbs and now instead this change would guarantee all sorts of public pillorying and debate instead. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is an artefact from the private drafting process (something that was itself additionally inserted during the process) that wasn't removed before posting here, so I've removed it.

  I'm not 100% convinced that this is the right change yet, but I think that from what I've seen, Community members who have requested recusals have found the current requirement to be counter-intuitive because they expect all things relevant to case requests to be made at ARC. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that this should be a procedural rule. There's no reason the forum for posting a request needs to be dictated to ArbCom by the community. ArbCom and the clerks are capable of managing the docket. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Barkeep49 and Izno that the arbitration policy shouldn't be overly prescriptive. The implementation details for requesting recusal are better placed in the instructions for arbitration. isaacl (talk) 05:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• There should be a non-public way to request recusal (if for example you have non-public reasons why you feel an Arb ought to recuse).—S Marshall T/C 15:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The idea of avoiding even the perception of a conflict or other impropriety is a very solid one, and the standard I held myself to during my time on the committee. Even in cases where one knows they could be impartial, if a reasonable person has cause to even suspect otherwise, recuals is the best option. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor change to reflect modern role of drafting arbs.

• This change again feels like it belongs in procedures not ArbPol because it is with-in their scope to say what powers drafters have. Conveniently enough it is in procedures. And if ArbCom is going ot keep it let's not add Latin phrases to the policy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Don't make it so hard on yourselves to change what the drafters do. And if Arbcom isn't a court, don't add Latin phrases that make it seem like one. Katie^talk 23:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Barkeep49 and KrakatoaKatie. The arbitration committee is reasonably empowered to decide how they organize their deliberations and discussions. The details should not be enshrined in policy where it would be difficult to adapt to shifting needs of the committee. isaacl (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with everyone above. This doesn't need to be in policy, and it definitely doesn't need Latin. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. I have never seen that phrase in legal Latin before. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, it's an established constitutional concept for many cabinet parliamentary systems. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been scolded before for using "too much Latin" in arb work, so it feels odd to be on the other side, but perhaps it could simply say something like 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)[reply]

  I think I have been one of those people. I get that it can be a convenient shorthand, but I prefer the committee use plain English whenever possible in any sort of formal public-facing discussion. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Substantial reword to reflect modern practices.

• Good idea. I'd love if the revised wording could be made about 10x simpler. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I did like the previous list framing of things. Izno (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps first describe the committee's jurisdiction, then what is outside of it? For example:

  The Committee has jurisdiction within the English Wikipedia. It retains jurisdiction over all its proceedings, including associated enforcement processes. It may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time.

  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 has no jurisdiction over official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff. It cannot issue decisions regarding Wikimedia projects other than the English Wikipedia, or any external venue outside the English Wikipedia.

  isaacl (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Good idea, but I prefer Isaacl's formulation. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with @Isaacl's proposal. However, since the intent of the second paragraph appears to be to provide jurisdiction to ArbCom to sanction users for such conduct, rather than to merely consider it under the previous take notice of conduct provision this replaces, then I would change The Committee may consider to The Committee has jurisdiction to impose sanctions for. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• A few years back, there was a concerted effort for the ArbCom to use less legalistic language, although it didn't go as far as it could have. Although the word "jurisdiction" is not especially obscure, perhaps "scope of authority" would be more user-friendly for those without a legal background or bent. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This proposal is probably the most controversial amongst the arbs, in that it attracted both the most vocal support and the most vocal opposition, in comparison to other proposals. On one hand, formal "standing" does, as a default, exclude a class of Wikipedians. On the other hand, the concept has been increasingly coming up from within the Committee and community in the past few years in a variety of contexts, but no such provisions have formally existed in policy or procedures.

• I think the right protection is there (ArbCom may provide exceptions), but perhaps this section should make it clear how a filing party may implore them to act. Izno (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this does not correctly take into account that enforcement and requests of such are another part of proceedings, and non-EC users would be totally verboten by this change, so I think this part needs adjustment along that dimension. Izno (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Why does this need to be policy? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  +1, also... Izno (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I opposed this in our private drafting phase, but if I take your question to mean why not in procedures?, the concept of standing is mentioned in #Participation and #Ratification and amendment, both part of the proposed policy. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was trying to be succinct where possible given the length of concerns I was expressing others, but yes I realized that. Hence my concerns on the talk page about whether there is going to be section by section or unified approval/disapproval. And as I noted there I think both of those approaches are mistakes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed to XC for actually filing cases and neutral on XC for ARCA requests, but opposed to anything higher than AC for anything else Arbitration-related. There needs to be a way for non-XC editors who may be unfamiliar with how Arbitration works to appeal sanctions via any valid venue (Enforcement, primarily). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• As a matter of practicality, I think setting a minimum standard for participating in arbitration proceedings in arbitration policy would be unduly rigid at present. I think requiring the committee to waive policy may be burdensome. I would rather see trials based on procedural changes, and then an evaluation of the new state of affairs. It's not clear to me that setting waivable minimum requirements is the best way to handle problems with unfounded requests, and would welcome other ideas. (Perhaps a minimum number of people should second a request?) isaacl (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I know this was probably not an intended interaction, but the proposed change at #Scope and responsibilities mentions that part of ArbCom's scope is to 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)[reply]
• No. At most what is required is giving arbcom the ability to limit participation in specific cases/requests to auto-confirmed editors when there is an articulated need. Anything else is excessive. Non-EC editors are not second-class citizens and arbcom should not be further legitimising the creeping debasement of the "Anyone can edit" foundational principle. Mechanisms already exist to allow handling of actual disruption, and there is no evidence that these are not working. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This. If a case is premature or even silly, it gets removed. If a non-EC editor causes disruption, we can block them or protect pages. I just hate the continued encroachment to 'anyone can edit' that these codes and policies are doing. Katie^talk 17:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Since 2007, the rough start of the modern era of arbcom, has there been a single case filed by a user with less than 30 days tenure and 500 edits that has been accepted? -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's the wrong question. The correct question to ask is on how many occasions has such an editor disruptively filed a case in a manner that the existing mechanisms have failed to adequately deal with? Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If for example the subject of a BLP needs to appeal to Arbcom, there ought to be a clear route, even if that person doesn't have a Wikipedia account.—S Marshall T/C 15:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can think of a reasonable future where the subject of a BLP will be posting a case on wiki -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's be honest: standing rules are docket management procedures. If ArbCom feels like it's getting too many frivolous filings, it can put this in its procedures. I don't see why this needs to be elevated to policy. Standing barriers should also be removed from the other provisions of this proposed policy. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree strongly with pulling up the ladder here. I believe that even autoconfirmed editors should be able to file a case at the ArbCom when the circumstances would otherwise warrant a case; when there are cases of blatant administrator abuse, or abuse by some other functionary where ArbCom would have appellate scope, editors should retain some recourse of appeal. The increased tendency to slap on an extended confirmed restriction across problem areas both risks Wikipedia's editors becoming a walled garden of sorts while also embracing a fundamentally anti-wiki approach. The vast majority of edits are made by individuals who are not XC, and we should not be biting them nor treating them like second-class citizens. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 voorts (talk/contributions) 20:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As several people already mentioned above, this appears to stray further from the "anyone can edit" principle. Wikipedia's culture and norms can already seem hostile for newcomers, and making them effectively second-class citizens by preventing them from reporting matters to ArbCom is not the way to go. This is compounded by the fact that the new proposals already increase ArbCom's scope by making it the only recourse against issues of administrator/functionary abuse, meaning this change would make it impossible for newer users to report these issues. Furthermore, there isn't even a need for this change to begin with: if a case has no merits, it can be dismissed on its lack of merit, rather than on the lack of experience of the editor filing it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not like this idea at all. The committee should not be going out of its way to look for ways to disenfranchise users. This would put the bar higher for particpating in the case than it is for actually voting on who is on the committee. That is not right. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor change to clarify how appeals are heard. The major change is to formalize the concept of hybrid proceedings, which form what seems like an ever-increasing number of cases heard by the Committee.

• Good ideas. As stated in the drafter's notes Hybrid cases are not really so extraordinary so I don't think that wording should be used. I also recommend changing the first sentence of appeals to get rid of the eg and just have it read 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)[reply]
• I agree with Barkeep. It would be good to include something that requires arbcom to share as much as it can about private (parts of hybrid) cases without compromising the reason for the privacy. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I like the idea of fomralizing hybrid proceedings, but I am at a loss as to how someone who is blocked or banned is supposed to file at ARCA. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If this is regarding the appeals subsection, they can email us as stated in the final sentence. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor changes: (1) to update wording referencing appointment (Jimbo used to formally appoint arbs based on election results and in the earlier years would exercise some discretion there); (2) note standing provision.

• (1) probably needs a reframe. The way the new wording is could imply they are not permitted to be onlist until after January 1, which is probably not intended (in some sense new arbitrators are active but recused). On a separate hand, it might be valuable for them to be "active" before the term officially begins, especially if the matters before the committee are expected to continue into the new term. (I'm not necessarily trying to suggest that this quality should change, but I can think of a few appeals that I got started working on in non-negligible ways before my term started.) "Active" is really doing too much work in the first sentence to be using it in the last of that paragraph.... Izno (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I know that "sanction" is a word that we have tried to remove from the vocabulary for multiple reasons (mine is usually that it can be used as its opposite, though context here makes it clear). Since we are looking, it might be reasonable to adjust that word (globally in this context). Izno (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Building off of Izno's points, Arbs aren't appointed. They're elected. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• With the exception of changing "appointed" to "elected", the old wording is actually superior to the new. Abcom doesn't have a concept of "standing" and it doesn't need one. The change from may become active to become active is 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)[reply]

  That was a wise decision. That case was awful. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• General modernization and update to reflect modern practices. There have been some previous internal discussions on what to do with age of evidence, and the proposal reflects a rough consensus of those discussions.

• I think an example (or several) of private communication needs to be restored to the document, otherwise it will be taken to imply WP:EMAILPOST solely rather than what the previous said, which was inclusive of WP:OWH as well. Izno (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  +1. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  +2. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Phrases such as "admissible evidence" are more legalisms. Perhaps they should remain in the policy out of familiarity, but the words "the Committee may consider ..." would mean pretty much the same thing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I dislike the idea that there is ever a need to impose a hrd limit on the age of evidence. Admin conduct cases in particualr are often predicated on the idea that the admin in question has displayed the same issue for a long period of time, or conversly, that they previously did seem to follow policy and at some point seemed to deliberately disregard it. Pretty much every case has irrelevant evidence presented, which the committee can simply ignore. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a reason that posts to Wikimedia-l would not be considered public evidence? I'm a bit confused as to why this was struck. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tie up some loose ends in the old wording.

• I assume that User:Barkeep49/ARBPOL amendment sandbox and related discussion was referenced for this change. Izno (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• To answer Izno's question it appears that yes they were referenced and I like what the committee did here (which for disclosure seems like mostly what I ended up recommending, albeit with a couple tweaks that I like). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't realize there was a public version of Barkeep's proposal, but yes, I combed arbwiki and the mailing list archives for proposals that seemed popular internally but never quite made it past those internal discussions. Maxim (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Other than the references to standing (which per my comments elsewhere is not required and will not be beneficial) this is a very good change. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This helpfully resolves an ambiguity in the prior wording as to how long a ratification vote should last. However, it leaves plenty of play in the joints as to whether a given vote will last for 7 days or 30 days or somewhere in between, and on who gets to decide. The last time this came up, an admin closed the vote when the result was clear and everyone accepted that decision, the same way as they would for an RfC or some other on-wiki process with a clear result, but in this context I wonder whether a more specific time period might possibly be preferable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed from CheckUser/Oversight permissions and inactivity

Functionaries

Appointment and removal

Inactivity

• While this proposal is all but a full rewrite of the existing procedure, it is descriptive in nature, that is, it reflects what the current procedures are in practice.

• 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.

  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)[reply]

  As I state above, my reading of a lot of these proposals are that they are an effort to increase transparency and de-mystify the process (yes, I know that is ironic given the feedback on the Latin). I certainly didn't know about the 70% threshold before I joined the Committee: the last few times the Committee voted to restore/grant CU/OS in public, the stated threshold was a majority (March 2015, September 2016, January 2016). If the feedback is that this should be shunted elsewhere, then we'll keep that in mind. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.

  Some suggestions:
  1. Separate the mention of inactivity from this paragraph. You have a whole separate section for it.
  2. Actually, maybe removal should be its own section with inactivity instead of in this section with appointment.
  3. As a key function of the Committee is to manage functionary access This is fluff, we already know it is.
  4. sua sponte: See also comments elsewhere about Latinisms. (Though I appreciate my own exposure to it as part of the committee.)
  5. 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.
  6. Remove the 'in support of this key Committee function' regardless as another item of fluff.
  Izno (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.

  As with the above, some suggestions:
  1. 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.
  2. 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".
  Izno (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Finally,

  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)

  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)[reply]

  When I joined the Committee, it wasn't clear where the line between the "normal" appointments process and the reappointments process was. In a case where someone hasn't had the tools in a very long time but relinquished them in good standing, would the Committee be willing to give it back on a simple majority without further functionary/Community consultation? I'm not sure. That uncertainty is also the case with someone who lost their tools for cause, or where they resigned it under a cloud – if the Committee were to tell them that they had to go through the full process (various consultations, filling out questionnaires) and we would need a 70% threshold, the Committee may be perceived as having made up its rules on the fly. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Superseded by functionary procedures, and the existing text from 2009 doesn't describe how CUOS complaints are handled nowadays.

• Delete, don't hat. Izno (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  +1. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Realized I wrote that then realized that we put copies of the previous text on the page. Perhaps part of this rewrite would be to do away with that practice and move all previously used section headers to the bottom, or to do something like WP:CSD does. That would likely need a new proposal section. Izno (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've found hatted sections in Committee procedures and cases to be useful when looking for the history behind amendments, instead of having to hunt in the history (which would require having to know that there is an unknown to be looking in the first place). I wonder if that's the case for others. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel like this should've been removed years ago when AUSC was disbanded, but clearly it was not. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mirrors case acceptance process. Codifies what is already done with obivously premature requests.

• Long overdue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  +1. Izno (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The criteria for accepting an arbitration request is currently part of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings. I feel it is sufficient to define the criteria for rejecting an arbitration request within the arbitration procedures. isaacl (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Isaacl this part of the page are changes to procedures so this would become a procedure. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for bringing this to my attention. isaacl (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is good. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Since about 2008 the Committee has generally used the softer term that an unsuccessful case request is "declined" rather than "rejected." Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Brad's point about using "declined." Otherwise this seems to reflect actual practice. I think it is good to formalize that a single arb can remove, or ask a clerk to remove, obviously grossly premature or innapropriate cases. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Formally define the concept of a drafting arbitrators, which has evolved to be a key part of formal cases.

• Maybe wikilink or define primi inter pares in the policy, for those of us who aren't overly familiar with legal terms? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I made similar comments about simplicitly of language in the related ArbPol change. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a procedural requirement to circulate the draft ahead of time can be read several ways. The current practice (since there hasn't been a case since I resigned) is to do drafting in a way that arbs can see progress along the way and, ideally, complete the draft in enough time that the draft, in a completed state, can get feedback. However, I would suggest the "transparency in creation" part is what is important and meeting the committee's obligations to the community are more important than circulating a finished draft ahead of time. I would just hate for a futre arbcom to read this procedure as saying that the finished product needs to be circulated ahead of time as that doesn't, truly, represent current practice (only current best practice). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would just hate On 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)[reply]

  I can think of 3 cases in my time where the committee had to rehash a PD after it was proposed. In one 1 of those 3 would a mandatory draft circulation have helped solve the problem, in my opinion and I believe it to be the one you're referring to. Beyond those other two cases where I don't think this would have helped, I stand by my comment for two reasons. 1) I think some committees have a strong tendency towards paralysis. A deadline that needs to be respected is a way to break that paralysis. A mandatory circulation period would add new paralysis. So if that were to happen, I think the committee would need to put a timer on it. 2) I think, on the whole, substantive work should be done in public where possible. One of the 3 cases I was thinking of, and this one was circulated ahead of time, was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject_Tropical_Cyclones and I think it was only through the substantive discussion among arbs that it was discovered that things needed to be revised, it was not (I don't think) a failure on the drafters' parts. I think that realization happening behind close doors would have been a net negative. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What matters is that proposed decisions get drafted in a timely fashion, that feedback is solicited wherever possible and that feedback is considered (and seen to be considered). A complete PD dropped in public immediately before arbs start voting on it can be seen as a fait accompli and should be avoided whenever possible - especially when arbitrators have not been actively engaged with workshop proposals. It is significantly preferable for arbs to show their working and get feedback as things progress so that (a) surprise is minimised and reasoning can be better understood (even if conclusions are disagreed with), and (b) misunderstandings and similar can be corrected before they propagate and/or become entrenched. All this speaks to drafting in public as much as privacy and similar allow. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• to replace drafting arbitrators in case This reads like some words got dropped. Izno (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not include the Latin - say what you mean in plain English. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  I think that that would disregard the pares element of it. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see my related comment above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor edits from having split out "drafting arbitrators" into its own section.

• I dislike that this is called the standard structure of a case but then we have otherwise enumerated standardized proceedings above which do not always or even often appear to be using the same structure. Izno (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• In my experience, this timetable sets entirely false expectations.—S Marshall T/C 15:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I feel like we were moving away from having the workshop be automatic in all cases and I think it should be explicitly noted as being optional, especially in admin conduct cases or other cases involving the behavior of only one or two people. It simply is not kind to have seven or eight different proposals that all say the same thing about the same person. Workshops have never had any actual basis in policy, it was just something an arb made up one day and inertia led to it being part of the standard structure. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  The text on the left are procedures. Workshops have not, to my knowledge, ever been in ARBPOL. But I don't know that it really matters because the minutia of how a case runs doens't belong in policy anyway. So whether there is a workshop, a community voting, or any other phase ArbCom might want to invent is entirely up to ArbCom to invent. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, the trap of the little-p policy. :^) Izno (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Add procedure to describe existing practices.

• "Best effort basis" is a new phrase. Can something that has more history be found or can that phrase be used more widely in these revised procedures? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't love that a public case would per se create a presumption against the submission of private evidence. If a public case is opened regarding on-wiki behavior in a topic area, and subsequent to that case starting a user who is party to the case engages in off-wiki canvassing (or some other off-wiki shenanigan), it would be wise to allow private evidence to be submitted by default. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Public cases already have a per se presumption against the submission of private evidence. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And a presumption against doesn't mean "will never be accepted". If you have evidence that is (or might be) private that you think is relevant, email the committee at whatever address they're using for that case/request with the evidence (or an outline of it if it is extensive) and explain why you think it might be private (if that isn't obvious). Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, that seems to be a bit subpar. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm assuming this is intended to push back on people who want to submit things privately when there is no actual need, which I do recall being an occaisional issue for the committee. I think the committee is already empowered to do this and has done so in the past, but it couldn't hurt to codify it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot of the rewrite is to reflect modern practice. Add language to enforce the seven-day unannounced inactivity rule from ARBPOL; there seems to be appetite to enforce this rule.

• As someone who enforced the 7 day rule at times it seems to me the problem is more "some doing the nitty gritty work of figuring out if people are inactive" more than a lack of procedure. But as a commitment mechanism around this idea, great. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  +1. Izno (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To add to the above, I also think we're all polite and don't want to nag our cohorts or be seen as the one being obnoxious on a headcount basis. I do wish some of our arbs tracked their own activity more closely and were willing to be honest when they're so busy they can't work on Stuff. I'm not sure of the best way forward on these points. Izno (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well said (just avoid another +1 between us). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ¶2 about inactivity will likely looks like it's missing a word. —Cryptic 01:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I realize our communication methods continue to evolve, but I would not suggest "I'm not active" to be something appropriate to send to any form of communication. For the purposes of this paragraph, email is enough, and creates a paper trail in the right place (IRC has no paper trail, other communication methods aren't the right place even if used on occasion), so or any other means used by the Committee or clerks to communicate should be stricken. Izno (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The paper trail is the edit history of WP:AC/M. I think someone saying they're inactive in any forum is fine rather than mandating someone already short on time fill out the paperwork in a particular manner. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The paper trail I think I care about in this context is the one between the inactive arb and the rest of the committee, which is not usually established by edits to AC/M. Email (or editing the page directly) is not particularly onerous when compared to the other alternatives this section would allow. Izno (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  An Arb who can't be trusted to appropriately act appropriately in marking people active/inactive shouldn't be trusted to be an arb. Where there is an honest misunderstanding the wrongly inactive arb can fix things for themselves without any drama. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm mostly trying to prevent a misunderstanding rather than to suggest that arbs who dare to use something without a paper trail shouldn't be trusted. :) Izno (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that this would be an ideal scenario, but ultimately it's sometimes hard enough to get into contact with inactive members that this further restriction would make things even more complicated. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is for sure the elphant in the room and has been for years. I support anything aimed at empowering the committee to acknowledge when someone has gone inactive without informing their peers. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Covered under #Arbitrator activity above.

• Public and internal Committee votes do stall from time to time.

• I don't think this is necessary if inactivity were tracked more closely, especially on the per-item level. Izno (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Izno how would inactivity on the per-item level work? If an arb has emailed about at least 1 item in the last 7 days but completely ignored arbwiki and ARCA/ACM motions they can't be considered inactive (which happens with some regularity). So it seems to offer a way out of that box? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  I'm not sure what you mean here: do you mean moving people to inactive on specific items if they don't respond after a period of time? If so, we would have issues of decisions being made by very few members. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If there are no objections What happens if there are? What is a legitimate objection? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is meant to be a measure with strong safeguards. If there are objections, then the regular system holds and the vote continues (until a majority either way is reached or someone starts this process again). Sdrqaz (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Change section and subsection names from "Ban appeals" to "Ban and block appeals" to reflect modern nomenclature.

Appeal of topic bans

• Remove unused procedure (appeal of topic bans).

• Agreed with removal. Izno (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove, better covered by other policies (especially WP:CLEANSTART).

• I think I agree with the motivation? Izno (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite to reflect modern practices.

• 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)[reply]

• Minor edit to reflect modern practices.