 | This page documents the internal rules and procedures of the Arbitration Committee.
It should not be edited without the Committee's authorization. | |
Ban appeals
The procedure for handling ban appeals is as follows:
- The coordinating arbitrator or their deputy shall refer all appeals from banned or long-term blocked users received by the Committee to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
- Within a reasonable time of a ban appeal having been referred to it, the Ban Appeals Subcommittee shall recommend a response to the appeal, as established by unanimous agreement among its members. The subcommittee may determine what constitutes a reasonable time for this purpose, which should not be less than 72 hours, nor more than one week.
- The response may confirm the ban, lift the ban, lift the ban and impose editing restrictions, recommend opening an arbitration case, refer the matter for community discussion, or entail any other action within the authority of the Committee.
- The response may advise the user that they may request further consideration of the appeal by filing a new request after a specified amount of time has passed, or after satisfying other specified conditions.
- The members of the subcommittee may communicate directly with the appealing editor, the blocking administrator, or other involved editors, at their discretion.
- Should the subcommittee require an extended period of time to provide a recommendation, it shall advise the Committee of this, and provide a date on which it expects a recommendation to be ready.
- If no arbitrator objects to the subcommittee's recommendation within 48 hours of its having been posted, the subcommittee shall issue the recommended response in the name of the Committee. If any arbitrator objects before the deadline, the response shall be brought before the entire Committee.
- Should the subcommittee be unable to arrive at a unanimous recommendation, the matter shall be brought before the entire Committee.
An arbitrator's service on the Ban Appeals 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 an editor whose appeal was considered by the subcommittee.
CheckUser and Oversight
CheckUser and Oversight 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.
CheckUser and Oversight inactivity
Editors who hold Oversight and/or CheckUser permissions but who have not used the tool(s) for more than twelve months will have access to the tool(s) and to the associated mailing list(s) removed. For arbitrators, the twelve-month inactivity clock starts on the day they leave office.
Incoming mail
The procedure for handling incoming mail to arbcom-l is as follows:
Once incoming mail has cleared list moderation, each message shall be acknowledged with a standard message and processed by the coordinating arbitrator or their deputy within 24 hours of receipt:
- Appeals of bans shall be referred to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
- Complaints regarding CheckUser or Oversight use shall be referred to the Audit Subcommittee.
- Notifications of secondary and alternate accounts shall be recorded on the private wiki and closed; no further action shall be taken unless requested by an arbitrator.
- Submissions of private evidence in an open case shall be recorded on the private wiki and closed; no further action shall be taken unless requested by an arbitrator.
- Informational notifications and comments which are determined by the coordinating arbitrator or their deputy to require no further action from the Committee shall be closed; no further action shall be taken unless requested by an arbitrator.
- All other messages shall be flagged for further action by the Committee.
All incoming mail, unless obviously frivolous, shall be tracked on the coordination page of the private wiki, and the coordinating arbitrator or their deputy shall circulate weekly summaries of all open items.
Internal resolutions
Proposing and enacting internal resolutions
The procedure for proposing and enacting internal resolutions is as follows:
- All internal resolutions will be proposed for voting on the Discussion board of the arbitration wiki, and will be clearly marked with a section header of the form "Proposal: X" in the case of normal resolutions, or "Urgent proposal: X" in the case of urgent resolutions.
- The coordinating arbitrator will circulate a daily list of open proposals and their current voting status to arbcom-l.
- When an internal resolution has passed, it will be announced on arbcom-l. The resolution will then be published to the public Committee noticeboard after a 48-hour waiting period (for normal resolutions) or immediately (for urgent resolutions).
Inactivity on internal resolutions
The rules for determining inactivity on internal resolutions are as follows:
- (a) Any arbitrator who fails to enter a vote on an internal resolution within one week of the vote having been generally announced on arbcom-l will be considered inactive on that resolution, and will not be counted when determining the majority for the resolution's passage; and
- (b) Any arbitrator considered inactive under provision (a) will be so marked when the resolution is published; but
- (c) An internal resolution will not come into effect if the total number of arbitrators voting on it is less than an absolute majority of the Committee.
Remedy enforcement
If an editor is subject to any sort of Arbitration Committee parole or restriction, and wishes to start a new account or to change their username with a suppressed redirect from the old name, they must notify the Committee of this before they proceed with editing under said new account/name. Failure to disclose this, if discovered, is grounds for a ban from the project.
Requests for amendment
Format of requests for amendment
A request for amendment of a closed case must clearly state the following:
- (a) The name of the case to be amended;
- (b) The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title;
- (c) For each clause in (b), the desired modification; and
- (d) The rationale for the requested amendment, comprising no more than 1000 words.
Any request which does not comply with these criteria will be summarily removed.
Temporary removal of permissions
When an account with advanced permissions appears to be harming the project, the Committee may authorize expedient temporary 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 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 temporary removal has been approved, an arbitrator will (a) directly request removal from a steward, (b) make a formal statement on the Meta-Wiki permissions page 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 temporary 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 Meta-Wiki permissions page, the Committee's noticeboard, the administrators' noticeboard, and the user's talk page.
Return of permissions
Temporary 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.
