Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures/2014 review

The Arbitration Committee is fundamentally governed by the arbitration policy, but its procedures also have a significant effect on its day-to-day business and affect many areas of Wikipedia. Most of the committee's procedures are now a number of years old, so they may no longer be fit for purpose. This review therefore aims to allow for community comment on the current procedures, and for arbitrators to propose new procedures for comment.

Review of committee procedures: 8.9% complete

May 2014: The review opens with the procedures relating to Advanced permissions.

All comment and discussion is on the talk page. Any editor is welcome to participate. Please do not directly edit this page (or the procedures page proper).

Usage & retention of CU/OS permissions by community AUSC appointees

Adopted on 11 March 2013

Current procedure on Usage & retention of CU/OS permissions by community AUSC appointees

Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) members are provided with Checkuser and Oversight tools in order to carry out their responsibilities. Community appointees to the AUSC are discouraged from routine or regular use of either tool; however, they are permitted to use the tools in order to develop a sufficient skill level to adequately assess the actions of Checkusers and Oversighters, and may assist in addressing time-sensitive situations, or serious backlogs. Community AUSC appointees who held advanced permission(s) prior to their term will retain the permission(s) they held prior to their appointment. Community AUSC appointees who did not hold advanced permissions prior to their term may apply to retain Checkuser and/or Oversight during any Checkuser/Oversight appointment cycle that occurs during their term and, if successfully appointed, will assume their new role at the end of the AUSC term.

Proposed changes: None, currently.

CheckUser/Oversight permissions and inactivity

Adopted on 30 March 2011

Amended on 11 March 2013

Current procedure on CheckUser/Oversight permissions and inactivity

Access to CheckUser and Oversight permissions is given sparingly. The permissions reflect the high trust placed in the holder but are not granted in perpetuity and holders are expected to use them regularly for the benefit of the project. Accordingly, the minimum activity level for each tool (based on the preceding three months' activity) shall be five logged actions, including at least one community-requested logged action. Examples of community-requested actions include suppression requests via the oversight-en-wp OTRS queue; CheckUser requests through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, those stemming from account creation requests, those made in response to threads at an administrative noticeboard, or posted on a CheckUser's personal user talk page. These activity requirements do not apply to: (a) sitting members of the Arbitration Committee; (b) holders using the permissions for audit purposes (such as members of the Audit Subcommittee); or (c) holders who have temporarily relinquished access, including CheckUsers or Oversighters who accept appointment to the Ombudsman Commission. Holders of the permissions are also expected to: Remain active on the English Wikipedia unless they have previously notified the Arbitration Committee of a significant expected absence and its likely duration. Consider temporarily relinquishing their permission(s) for planned prolonged periods of inactivity. Reply within seven days to email communications from either the Audit Subcommittee or the Arbitration Committee about their use of the permissions. Holders who do not comply with the activity and expectation requirements – or who mark their accounts "semi-retired", "retired", or "inactive", or who announce their effective retirement by other means – may have their permissions removed by the Arbitration Committee. Prior to removal of access, two attempts will be made to contact the holder using the email address they provided to the Committee. Permissions will usually be reinstated on the following bases: Temporarily relinquished permissions will normally be promptly restored provided no issues have arisen in the interim. Permissions removed for unannounced inactivity will normally be restored once (a) a satisfactory explanation for the unannounced inactivity has been given and (b) satisfactory assurances about future activity levels have been received. Requests for reinstatement for any other reason will be considered on a case by case basis. Note that Stewards and Wikimedia Foundation staff granted CheckUser and Oversight permissions by the WMF are outside of the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee.

Proposed changes: On talk page:

• That elections for the roles of checkuser and oversighter be held, with the usual suffrage.
• That ArbCom no longer involves itself in the responsibility for CU & OS appointments.
• That AUSC or the functionaries themselves take over responsibility for inactivity alerts and removals.

Appointment to the Audit Subcommittee

Adopted on 5 April 2011

Current procedure on Appointment to the Audit Subcommittee

A candidate for the Audit Subcommittee will be appointed if: No serious concerns in relation to privacy violations or other breach of trust have been raised; and The candidate has been supported by at least 80% of the votes cast. In the event of there being more candidates meeting this standard than there are vacancies, candidates will be ranked by percentage of support. If this still results in a tie for the last available place(s), the number of support votes will be used to break the tie. If this does not break the tie, a runoff election will be held. The fourth ranked candidate passing criteria (1) and (2) will remain an alternate, to be appointed if one of the appointed candidates retires before the end of his/her term.

Proposed changes: None, currently.

Auditing

Adopted on 19 April 2009

Currnet procedure on Auditing

The procedure for handling complaints related to CheckUser or Oversight use is as follows: All complaints about the use of CheckUser or Oversight privileges received by the Committee shall be referred to the Audit Subcommittee by forwarding the complaint to the subcommittee's mailing list (arbcom-audit-en). The subcommittee shall investigate the matter and determine whether any breach of applicable Wikimedia Foundation or English Wikipedia policies took place. The subcommittee shall be responsible for requesting statements, documents, and any other material of interest to the investigation. During the investigation, the subcommittee shall keep the complainant, the subject of the complaint, and the coordinating arbitrator or their deputy informed of its progress and expected date of completion. The subcommittee shall provide the subject of the complaint with a reasonable opportunity to respond to any concerns raised. Within a reasonable time of a complaint having been referred to it, the subcommittee shall present their findings on the matter to the Committee by forwarding them to the Committee's mailing list (arbcom-l). The subcommittee may determine what constitutes a reasonable time for this purpose, which should not be less than one week, nor more than three weeks. The subcommittee shall determine findings by majority vote. Members of the subcommittee disagreeing with the majority findings may attach dissenting views. The subcommittee may, at its discretion, recommend a particular course of action with regard to the subject of the complaint. The Committee shall review the findings and determine what further action, if any, is to be taken in the matter. At a minimum: The Committee shall distribute copies of the subcommittee's final report to the subject of the complaint and the complainant, unless doing so would substantially jeopardize the security of the project. If the subcommittee report indicates that a breach of Wikimedia Foundation policy occurred, the Committee shall forward the report to the Foundation Ombudsman Commission for review. The Committee shall announce the results of the investigation on-wiki in as much detail as is permitted by the relevant policies. An arbitrator's service on the Audit Subcommittee is part of his or her official service as an arbitrator, and therefore shall not constitute grounds for recusal in a subsequent matter involving the complainant or the subject of the complaint.

Proposed changes: On talk page. That AUSC alone be responsible for adjudicating complaints about CU & OS use, and that AUSC have responsibility for implementing its own decisions.

Removal of permissions

Adopted on 23 April 2009

Current procedure on Removal of permissions

When an account with advanced permissions appears to be harming the project, the Committee may authorize expedient removal of these permissions via the procedures below. If the account in question has multiple sets of advanced permissions, removal will generally apply to all of them. The use of these procedures by the Committee is not intended to constrain the authority of the Wikimedia Stewards to undertake emergency removal of permissions on their own discretion, pursuant to the relevant policies governing Steward actions. Level I procedures Level I procedures may be used if (a) an account appears to be obviously compromised, or is intentionally and actively using advanced permissions to cause harm in a rapid or apparently planned fashion, or (b) multiple accounts are actively wheel-warring. The procedure for removal of permissions is as follows: An arbitrator, on becoming aware of the situation, will send a message to arbcom-l (a) stating the name of the account, (b) briefly describing the issue, providing examples of inappropriate conduct, (c) recommending removal of permissions, and (d) specifying why removal should occur under Level I procedures. Any available arbitrators will respond using whatever communication medium is available, and will update the thread on arbcom-l to keep the remainder of the Committee informed. A request for removal of advanced permissions may be made when three or more arbitrators agree that a situation warranting the use of Level I procedures exists, and that removal of permissions is required, with no dissenting opinions from other arbitrators. Once removal has been approved, an arbitrator will (a) directly request removal from a bureaucrat, or steward if necessary, (b) make a formal statement on the bureaucrat noticeboard or Meta-Wiki permissions page as appropriate, to confirm that the request is based on the authority of the Committee, and (c) post a notice to the Committee's noticeboard, the administrators' noticeboard, and the user's talk page, including a brief explanation of the reason for removal and the names of the arbitrators who authorized it. Level II procedures Level II procedures may be used if (a) the account's behaviour is inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated advanced permissions, and (b) no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. The procedure for removal of permissions is as follows: The initiating arbitrator will (a) leave a message on the account's talk page, asking the account to contact arbcom-l, and (b) send a similar message to the account by Wikipedia e-mail, if enabled. The initiating arbitrator will then send a message to arbcom-l (a) stating the name of the account, (b) briefly describing the issue, providing examples of inappropriate conduct, and (c) recommending removal of permissions. The Committee will then schedule deliberations on the matter. A request for removal of advanced permissions may be made once a motion to do so has been endorsed by a majority of active arbitrators. Once removal has been approved, an arbitrator will post a notice, including the text of the motion and the names of arbitrators endorsing it, to the bureaucrat noticeboard or Meta-Wiki permissions page as appropriate, the Committee's noticeboard, the administrators' noticeboard, and the user's talk page. Return of permissions Removal is protective, intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations take place, and the advanced permissions will normally be reinstated once a satisfactory explanation is provided or the issues are satisfactorily resolved. If the editor in question requests it, or if the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances.

Proposed changes: None, currently.