User:FT2/Arbitration Policy suggested edits (annotated version)

The following is a copyedit of the proposed draft Arbitration Policy, annotated and bolded to show non-trivial edits.

A version of this page without the highlighting and explanatory notes is here.

Trivial merges, splits or moves are uncommented.
Other changes are bolded with a note explaining the significance or rationale.

The Arbitration Committee

Duties and responsibilities

The Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia has the following duties and responsibilities:

To act as a decision-maker of last resort for Wikipedia disputes, to determine which of these disputes are suitable for arbitration, and to carefully review and render binding decisions in those disputes;
To consider and address appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users;
Where necessary, to deal summarily with urgent or emergency situations, such as those involving blatant abuse of administrator or other privileges, threatening or malicious conduct presenting a danger to the project or its contributors, and other situations that require immediate action or are not suited for public discussion because of privacy or similar concerns; and
To appoint certain functionaries of the English Wikipedia, including the holders of the CheckUser and Oversight privileges.

Jurisdiction ^[1]

The Committee has jurisdiction over user conduct disputes involving the English Wikipedia, including the use of special privileges accorded to certain users such as administrator status. This includes the review of administrator or steward actions taken by Jimbo Wales in his special capacity as project leader.

The Committee has no jurisdiction over official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation, nor over Wikimedia projects other than the English Wikipedia.

Membership and selection

The members of the Committee shall be appointed by Jimbo Wales, in his role as project leader, following advisory elections whose format shall be decided by the community. Jimbo Wales may, at his discretion, make interim appointments between regular elections or extend the terms of sitting arbitrators to compensate for early departures or long-term inactivity.

Arbitrators must meet the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to nonpublic data.

Procedures and roles

Arbitrators may participate in either off-wiki or on-wiki Committee tasks, or both, at their discretion.^[2]

The Committee may, at its discretion, modify its internal procedures or designate individual arbitrators for particular tasks or roles, or delegate any authority granted to it by this policy to another group of its choosing.

Arbitrator conduct

Arbitrators shall, at all times, act with integrity and good faith to uphold the trust of the community and the high standards expected of them. Should their actions cause concern, arbitrators shall explain their conduct in matters relevant to their trusted roles to their colleagues and to the community.

Inactivity

[Sentence moved]^[2]

Arbitrators who are, or are likely to become, inactive for a period of time shall advise the Committee of this. A arbitrator who has been unreliably active, or has been inactive for an extended period, may be asked by the Committee to remain inactive on cases until the matter is resolved or, in exceptional cases, may be removed without prejudice from the Committee by decision of the Committee and Jimbo Wales.

An arbitrator may resign at any time, for any or no stated reason. An arbitrator who resigns voluntarily may reclaim his or her seat at any time, until the date the original appointment would have ended had he or she not resigned.

Jimbo Wales may remove an arbitrator from the Committee upon reasonable cause and after consultation with the remaining members of the Committee.

Arbitration proceedings

Arbitration exists to determine an appropriate and binding way forward for intractable disputes where other means of reaching a communal resolution have failed or are expected to fail.^[3]

The arbitration process primarily addresses disputes involving problematic or disruptive user conduct (including the means by which content is determined and untoward activity affecting content decisions). As part of dispute resolution, Arbitrators may look at editor conduct in relation to policies governing article content, and may reaffirm and provide guidance on those policies, but as a rule they will decline requests to help determine the actual contents or presentation of articles ("content disputes"). ^[4][PROPOSED FOOTNOTE ADDED]^[5]

The arbitration process is not a vehicle to create new policy. However, the Committee's decisions can interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognize, assess, and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and standards may be enforced.^[6]

In exceptional cases of communal division or exceptional risk of harm to the project, the Committee may determine a interim means to achieve the aims of communal policies or to curtail dispute in the area, until the community has developed a better consensus.

Requests

Requests must be presented in the form prescribed by the Committee. The length of statements may be subject to reasonable limits imposed by the Committee, and all editors who would be directly affected by the desired outcome of the case must be notified of it by the person filing the request.

Acceptance

The Committee reserves the right to hear or not hear any dispute at its discretion.

The Committee will normally require that editors show they have exhausted the previous steps in the dispute resolution process before proceeding to arbitration. The Committee will normally hear a case despite the absence of prior dispute resolution only for very urgent matters,^[7] where the case involves an unusually divisive dispute among administrators, where there has already been extensive discussion with wide community participation, or where there is a specific reason to believe that engaging the earlier steps of the dispute resolution process would not be productive.

The Committee will consider, but is not bound by, the views of the parties to a request for arbitration and comments by other interested users in deciding whether or not to accept a case. A request shall be accepted if it meets the criteria set by the Committee.^[8] Currently these are:

The request must have four net votes to accept, or have an absolute majority of active, unrecused arbitrators voting to accept;
The request must have received its first instance of four net votes to accept more than 24 hours ago; and
The request must have been filed more than 48 hours ago (this waiting period may be waived by the Committee where there is a clear need to open the case immediately).

Once there are sufficient votes to accept, a waiting period of 24 hours will be observed before the case is formally opened, unless a majority of all active arbitrators have voted to accept the case or otherwise directed by the Committee.^[9] The Committee or the Clerk will designate the case with an appropriate casename. This name is used for the purposes of identification only, may change prior to close,^[10] and has no substantive significance.

Individual arbitrators may express their views on the dispute, and other means available for its resolution. The parties should give these careful consideration, in particular if the case is declined.^[11]

Recusal

An arbitrator may recuse himself or herself from any case at any time prior to voting, or not post a vote on any matter, with or without giving a reason.

An arbitrator shall recuse himself or herself in any case in which he or she has a conflict of interest, such as prior involvement in the substance of the dispute or a history of disagreements with one of the parties, such that his or her impartiality in the case could reasonably be questioned. Actions in an arbitrator's official capacity, such as ruling on a prior case involving a party, shall not be considered adequate grounds for recusal.

Any user who believes that circumstances call for an arbitrator's recusal should bring the matter to that arbitrator's attention for his or her prompt consideration and response. Concerns beyond this should be raised with the Committee.

Except in extraordinary circumstances, requests for recusal after a case has entered the voting stage will not be granted.

Expedited decisions and motions

Where the facts of a situation are substantially undisputed and the Committee believes that it can issue a fair, well-informed, and useful remedy without opening a full-fledged case, it may act by motion to be proposed and voted upon on the requests for arbitration page. Adopting such a motion in lieu of opening a case shall require a majority vote of all active, non-recused arbitrators.

Where the Committee believes that a pending case can best be resolved by a motion rather than a formal decision, such a motion may be proposed on the proposed decision page, and also requires a majority vote of all active, non-recused arbitrators.

Where the Committee believes that a case should be resolved through a formal decision but that expedition is required, it may set a reasonable expedited schedule for the presentation of evidence after which the case will move to the voting page.

Private hearings

The Committee may determine by majority vote that an entire case should be considered off-wiki, but this shall be done only in extraordinary circumstances where warranted by considerations of privacy, risks of harassment, or legal issues. [Sentence moved]^[12]

'Normal hearings'

[Text moved and some deleted]^[10]

Participation

Cases are decided by the full Committee rather than by panels or subcommittees. All active arbitrators, with the exception of those recused, are entitled to participate in each case. An arbitrator whose term expires while a case is pending may remain active on that case until its conclusion. An arbitrator who is newly appointed may decide to become active on any or all cases pending at the time he or she takes office or may decline to do so.^[13] Any arbitrator may comment on any aspect of a case, inactivity notwithstanding. ^[14]

Any interested editor not restricted from doing so, may add evidence or salient statements to the relevant case pages.^[15]

Editors named as parties to an arbitration case and given due notice of the case are expected to participate in the proceeding. Any editor named as a party or otherwise subject to scrutiny during the course of a case shall be notified of this by the Committee or its Clerks, and will be given a minimum of seven days after a case is opened or they are notified, whichever is later, to respond. (The seven-day period may be shortened for good cause, in which case the involved editors will be notified.)

Should a party to a case fail to respond within seven days or such other time as the Committee may determine, or explictly refuse to participate in the case, the Committee may nonetheless rule on that party's conduct in his or her absence. Should a party to a case leave Wikipedia during the proceedings, the Committee may, at its discretion, dismiss the case in its entirety, suspend the case or any aspect of it until the party returns,^[16] or continue the case regardless.

Should an administrator who is a party to a case resign his or her position while the case is pending, they shall not be eligible for reinstatement of that position upon request to a bureaucrat, but will generally be required to submit a new request for adminship, unless otherwise determined^[17] by the Committee.

Editors whose conduct is under review in connection with a private hearing will be given due notice of matters related to their part in the case and an opportunity to respond. In the event of genuine emergency or temporary action, these will be followed up by opportunity to respond before being finally decided or affirmed.^[12]

Temporary injunctions

At any time between the opening of a case and its closure, the arbitrators may, by majority vote, enact a "temporary injunction" to restrict the conduct of the parties for the duration of the case. Adoption of a temporary injunction requires a net vote of four arbitrators in support, with each oppose subtracting a support. The Committee's adoption of a temporary injunction is an interim measure and does not reflect any prejudgment of the final result of the case.

Conduct

The Committee may enforce reasonable standards of editor conduct on Arbitration case pages, or other Arbitration Committee related pages where cases are discussed.^[18]

Evidence

Evidence admissible in an arbitration proceeding includes all edits and log entries (including deleted or otherwise hidden edits and log entries) from English Wikipedia and any other Wikimedia hosted project, as well as posts to the official Wikimedia Foundation hosted mailing lists.^[19]

Exception: No evidence from official mediation shall be presented or considered in an arbitration proceeding. While rare exceptions exist under mediation policy, such material should not be submitted or reposted except with the prior written consent of the Mediation Committee.^[20]

Evidence from outside sources (including, but not limited to, other websites, forums, chat rooms, or personal correspondence) may not be^[21] presented or considered in an arbitration proceeding, except in cases of serious external harassment or conspiracy to violate Wikipedia policy, or as evidence directly related to a party's serious disruptive intentions.^[22] Such evidence should not be posted initially on the public wiki, but submitted in private to the Committee, who will determine the appropriateness of the material as evidence and for posting.^[23] Evidence from outside sources that was not intended by its author(s) to be readable by anyone at will must not be^[24] posted on-wiki except with the explicit permission of the communicants, the authors of any material that is quoted in the cited text, and any recipients who are being publicly named. [FOOTNOTE ADDED] ^[25]

Evidence may be submitted privately by forwarding it to the Committee's mailing list. The Committee may request that privately submitted evidence be posted publicly if there is no reasonable cause for it to be private.

The Committee will make every effort to circulate privately submitted evidence to all parties, except when doing so would result in undue risk of harassment or retalliation against the editors providing that evidence, or facilitate further disruption.^[26]

'Dismissal of cases'

[Text moved]^[27]

Format and scope of decisions

The form of decisions shall follow a standardized format, presently comprising^[28] principles (general statements of policy), findings of fact (findings specific to the case), remedies (binding rulings concerning the parties' future conduct), and enforcement provisions.

Each substantive principle, finding, remedy, or enforcement provision shall be placed in a separate paragraph for purposes of voting. Where multiple statements have been combined in a single paragraph, they shall be separated for voting at the request of any arbitrator.

Decisions will be presented in clearly written English. The wording and significance of any provision whose meaning is unclear to other arbitrators, the parties, or other interested editors will be clarified upon request.

Previous Arbitration Committee decisions are considered to be useful and informative, but shall not be binding on future Committee action.

Voting on proposed decisions

A majority vote of the active, non-recused arbitrators is required for the adoption of any portion of a decision. Proposed decisions shall be posted and voted on on-wiki except in the case of private hearings.

For any given case, an arbitrator is considered either active or inactive. The presumption is that each arbitrator is active on each case unless he or she states otherwise. An inactive arbitrator may become active on a case by stating that he or she will be active on the case or by voting on any issue in the case. An active arbitrator may become inactive by so stating, in which case any votes already cast by that arbitrator on the proposed decision shall be considered withdrawn. An arbitrator who abstains on a particular proposal is not counted in determining the required majority for purposes of that proposal only.

Motions to close or dismiss^[27]

When the proposed decision is in final form, an arbitrator shall move to close the case. Four net votes in favor of closing the case shall be required to enact the decision.

A grace period of a minimum of twenty-four hours shall be observed between the fourth net vote to close the case and the implementation of the remedies passed in the case, unless four or more arbitrators vote to close the case immediately, or an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators vote to close the case.

If the Committee determines at any time that issuing a formal decision in a case would serve no useful purpose, or that they are unable to reach a majority decision, it may, by majority vote, dismiss the case without a decision.

Subsequent to closure

When a case is closed, any immediately applicable remedies shall go into effect.

Should the dispute fail to be resolved, or the decision better target the problem if amended, the Committee may hear a request by any user to modify the original remedies or enforcement provisions by summary motion, or to open a full case to review developments since the original case was closed.^[29]

Appeals

Remedies and enforcement actions by the Arbitration Committee may be appealed to, and are subject to modification by, Jimbo Wales, except where the case involves review of one of Jimbo Wales's own actions.

A party or other editor affected by remedies in a given case may request reconsideration in light of subsequent developments (such as a party's request that a remedy be lifted or modified based on subsequent good behavior by the party). The Committee may, at its discretion, require a minimum time to have elapsed ^[30]before hearing such a request.

Preview <references/> (based on VirtualReferences.js by :de:User:ParaDox):

^ Moved from "Arbitration proceedings" to simplify that section and highlight jurisdictional remit.
^ ^a ^b The option to participate on or off wiki is more about roles and procedures, than inactivity. Moved this.
^ This needs saying somewhere in the policy. Most policies have some explanation, and this point is sufficiently central that users should find it in the policy itself, clearly and visibly stated and quotable.
^ Clarify "content dispute" and "conduct dispute"; this is historically an area of contention so more clarity about the distinction is helpful.
^ We get people regularly trying to argue what is and isn't one. Well worth killing that recurrent issue. Add a footnote to the policy, to clarify:
"A content issue is one where the committee is being primarily asked to decide as editors, between facts and viewpoints within a mainspace article, or to choose which are 'good' or 'bad' templates, categories, layouts, etc, as opposed to addressing the principles and disputes surrounding these choices, and analysis of the compliance or otherwise of editors' activities with established communal policies and norms."
^ Slight edits; it's important that the Committee can assess current practices against policy, and determine that a given practice does or does not comply with existing norms, or is at significant risk of leading to substandard policy-breaching decisions or breaching policy. It's not clear whether "recognize" covers this, hence "assess". Likewise standards as well as "the letter of a policy" may need to be enforced as part of a decision.
^ Omission.
^ Acceptance criteria may be more open to change by committee decision than policy as a whole, based upon how cases change over time.
^ Unclear: when might "a majority of active arbs" and "direction by the committee" not coincide?
^ ^a ^b "Normal hearings contains administrative matters such as names of pages used which aren't really policy issues any more than the names of SPI cases are salient to sock policy, and case name which is moved to a more useful point. Added that case name may be amended until close of case.
^ Views and input are often given at acceptance too. Parties should always give careful attention to RFAR arbitrator comments on the request. Like other disagreements, user resolution during RFAR is still encouraged, even if more unlikely to succeed. Current wording suggests only pay attention if declined, which is unhelpful.
^ ^a ^b Issues related to due notice, participation, and right to respond, including in a private hearing, are best collated under "participation" as there are other issues to consider along with it. The main one being that the right to prior notice and discussion doesn't arise for genuine temporary or emergency actions. Rather in such cases the temporary or emergency action may have to happen first with the discussion and any final resolution happening after.
^ Cleaner wording, no substantive change.
^ Often an inactive arb may spot some issue on some case, such as a wording problem or potential concern on a major point, and wish to highlight it without becoming "active". The "any aspect of" is to remove doubt whether they can comment on issues such as case management, proposed decisions and closure if inactive.
^ Simplify wording and note it doesn't apply to editors who are blocked, banned or restricted from doing so.
^ Flow/wording improvement.
^ "Determined", not "directed".
^ 1/ Remove "the"; 2/ Emphasis, better to say "conduct standards" than just "these standards"; 3/ Arbitrators and clerks may need to enforce conduct standards on other Arbitration pages such as the Arbitration Committee noticeboard, or Arbitration talk pages, for example when a heated case "spills over". So slight broadening ("or other Arbitration Committee related pages where cases are discussed") is required. 3/ No need to mention clerks; we've said "may delegate" elsewhere.
^ Reword, no substantive change. 1/ Simplify the wording; 2/ "includes" is better than "shall include".
^ Exceptions to this rule do exist; note this and clarify what to do if one of them is being claimed.
^ "Evidence from outside may not be presented except..." flows better than "no evidence from outside may be presented except..."
^ For example, if there are COI issues or a dedicated "real world" involvement in the topic, there need not be a "conspiracy", but it could be highly relevant to a decision. Need to ensure we aren't handcuffed against lone POV warriors and SPAs who can demand any evidence of their having a real-life agenda is kept out of the case. Alternatively slightly widen the wording so that it isn't just "conspiracies".
^ Much simpler. Previously there was a whole paragraph on this.
^ Typo - "must not to be"
^ A brief descriptive summary of the salient point being evidenced will often be permitted, for transparency. However such a summary may nonetheless be removed or redacted at Arbitrator or clerk discretion. Removed material should not be reinstated.
^ WP:BEANS. Canonical example: there will be cases where it's completely inappropriate to tell a hardened sock user exactly the behavioral evidence that led to their identification.
^ ^a ^b Merged "motion to dismiss" with "motion to close".
^ Allows some flexibility for future modification of how cases are processed on the wiki, their posting style and page structures. The aims of the case and of its hearing by contrast are less flexible.
^ Better explanation.
^ Removing superfluous wording "since the enactment of the ruling".

Amendments to the arbitration policy

The arbitration policy and Committee are delegated by Jimbo Wales in his role as project leader of English Wikipedia. Changes to this policy shall only be made with the approval of Jimbo Wales or of the Committee itself.

Notes and comments on edits

[1] Moved from "Arbitration proceedings" to simplify that section and highlight jurisdictional remit.

[participation-2] The option to participate on or off wiki is more about roles and procedures, than inactivity. Moved this.

[3] This needs saying somewhere in the policy. Most policies have some explanation, and this point is sufficiently central that users should find it in the policy itself, clearly and visibly stated and quotable.

[4] Clarify "content dispute" and "conduct dispute"; this is historically an area of contention so more clarity about the distinction is helpful.

[5] We get people regularly trying to argue what is and isn't one. Well worth killing that recurrent issue. Add a footnote to the policy, to clarify:
"A content issue is one where the committee is being primarily asked to decide as editors, between facts and viewpoints within a mainspace article, or to choose which are 'good' or 'bad' templates, categories, layouts, etc, as opposed to addressing the principles and disputes surrounding these choices, and analysis of the compliance or otherwise of editors' activities with established communal policies and norms."

[6] Slight edits; it's important that the Committee can assess current practices against policy, and determine that a given practice does or does not comply with existing norms, or is at significant risk of leading to substandard policy-breaching decisions or breaching policy. It's not clear whether "recognize" covers this, hence "assess". Likewise standards as well as "the letter of a policy" may need to be enforced as part of a decision.

[7] Omission.

[8] Acceptance criteria may be more open to change by committee decision than policy as a whole, based upon how cases change over time.

[9] Unclear: when might "a majority of active arbs" and "direction by the committee" not coincide?

[normal_cases-10] "Normal hearings contains administrative matters such as names of pages used which aren't really policy issues any more than the names of SPI cases are salient to sock policy, and case name which is moved to a more useful point. Added that case name may be amended until close of case.

[11] Views and input are often given at acceptance too. Parties should always give careful attention to RFAR arbitrator comments on the request. Like other disagreements, user resolution during RFAR is still encouraged, even if more unlikely to succeed. Current wording suggests only pay attention if declined, which is unhelpful.

[private-12] Issues related to due notice, participation, and right to respond, including in a private hearing, are best collated under "participation" as there are other issues to consider along with it. The main one being that the right to prior notice and discussion doesn't arise for genuine temporary or emergency actions. Rather in such cases the temporary or emergency action may have to happen first with the discussion and any final resolution happening after.

[13] Cleaner wording, no substantive change.

[14] Often an inactive arb may spot some issue on some case, such as a wording problem or potential concern on a major point, and wish to highlight it without becoming "active". The "any aspect of" is to remove doubt whether they can comment on issues such as case management, proposed decisions and closure if inactive.

[15] Simplify wording and note it doesn't apply to editors who are blocked, banned or restricted from doing so.

[16] Flow/wording improvement.

[17] "Determined", not "directed".

[18] 1/ Remove "the"; 2/ Emphasis, better to say "conduct standards" than just "these standards"; 3/ Arbitrators and clerks may need to enforce conduct standards on other Arbitration pages such as the Arbitration Committee noticeboard, or Arbitration talk pages, for example when a heated case "spills over". So slight broadening ("or other Arbitration Committee related pages where cases are discussed") is required. 3/ No need to mention clerks; we've said "may delegate" elsewhere.

[19] Reword, no substantive change. 1/ Simplify the wording; 2/ "includes" is better than "shall include".

[20] Exceptions to this rule do exist; note this and clarify what to do if one of them is being claimed.

[21] "Evidence from outside may not be presented except..." flows better than "no evidence from outside may be presented except..."

[22] For example, if there are COI issues or a dedicated "real world" involvement in the topic, there need not be a "conspiracy", but it could be highly relevant to a decision. Need to ensure we aren't handcuffed against lone POV warriors and SPAs who can demand any evidence of their having a real-life agenda is kept out of the case. Alternatively slightly widen the wording so that it isn't just "conspiracies".

[23] Much simpler. Previously there was a whole paragraph on this.

[24] Typo - "must not to be"

[25] A brief descriptive summary of the salient point being evidenced will often be permitted, for transparency. However such a summary may nonetheless be removed or redacted at Arbitrator or clerk discretion. Removed material should not be reinstated.

[26] WP:BEANS. Canonical example: there will be cases where it's completely inappropriate to tell a hardened sock user exactly the behavioral evidence that led to their identification.

[dismissal-27] Merged "motion to dismiss" with "motion to close".

[28] Allows some flexibility for future modification of how cases are processed on the wiki, their posting style and page structures. The aims of the case and of its hearing by contrast are less flexible.

[29] Better explanation.

[30] Removing superfluous wording "since the enactment of the ruling".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]