User:Ryan Delaney/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is a sandbox for a proposal to amend the Wikipedia:Arbitration policy.

Problems to be addressed

  • The current arbitration system is not adequately scalable.
  • Consequently, the Arbitration Committee is overloaded, and Arbitrators are subject to a high incidence of "burnout".

Proposed solution

  • The Arbitration process will be tiered into a system of upper and lower courts.
  • Lower courts will consist of "Magistrates" who will have original jurisdiction to hear and rule on most Arbitration cases.
    • Magistrates will be administrators chosen by community consensus in a process similar to WP:RFA. In addition to community consensus, users requesting Magistrate status must receive zero (0) oppose votes from current Arbitrators.
    • The number of active Magistrates will be determined by the Arbitration Committe and Jimbo Wales. If there is a vacancy, new Magistrates will become active in the order they are appointed.
    • A Magistrate may be involuntarily removed from active status only by the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo Wales.
  • Arbitrators will sit on a senior Arbitration Committee that will oversee judgments by Magistrates, on appeal only, except in certain cases where it will have original jurisdiction.
  • The Arbitration Committe will remain the court of last resort for all Arbitration cases, and may dictate policy to its subsidiaries at its discretion.

Notes

  • Any changes to the policy by this proposal will not have effect until after the upcoming ArbCom elections.
This page is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".


Shortcut:
WP:AP

The Arbitration policy acts as a guideline for the workings of the Arbitration Committee. These policies are now fully adopted, but subject to amendment. See the Arbitration policy comments, the Arbitration policy ratification vote, and the Arbitration rationale.

It has been indicated elsewhere (see e.g. the Arbitration policy ratification vote) that the "Arbitration Policy may be tweaked as the Committee gains experience and learns better ways of doing things". Jimbo Wales has also suggested that the policy is not subject to amendment by the community.

Several landmark decisions have been made in previous cases that may have an impact on current cases; see /Precedents.

Contents

[edit] Jurisdiction

Magistrates will hear all disputes on which they are requested, with appeal to the Arbitration Committee, except for certain situations where the dispute will be heard by the Arbitration Committee without first going through a Magistrate. This is limited to disputes which:

  • ... involve one or more Bureaucrats or Stewards.
  • ... involve one or more Magistrates or members of the Arbitration Committee itself.
  • ... have been referred to Arbitration by the Mediation Committee.
  • ... a majority of Arbitrators have voted to hear the case before a Magistrate has ruled on it.

Notes

  • The Magistrates and Arbitrators will occasionally request advice from Jimbo Wales on whether to hear a particular dispute.
  • The Magistrates and Arbitrators will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes.
  • The Magistrates and Arbitrators will hear or not hear disputes according to the wishes of the community, where there is a consensus.
  • The Magistrates and Arbitrators will not hear disputes where they have not been requested to.
  • As a body reporting to the Wikimedia Foundation Board, which has the ability to direct the Committee to reach a verdict or otherwise act in a particular way, neither Magistrates nor the Arbitration Committee have jurisdiction over the members of the Board.

[edit] Rules

The Arbitrators will decide cases according to the following guidelines, which they will apply with common sense and discretion, and an eye to the expectations of the community:

  1. Established Wikipedia customs and common practices.
  2. Wikipedia's "laws": terms of use, submission standards, bylaws, general disclaimer, and copyright license.
  3. Sensible "real world" laws.

Former decisions will not be binding on the Arbitrators - rather, they intend to learn from experience.

[edit] Transparency

  • Arbitrators and Magistrates with multiple accounts on Wikipedia will disclose the usernames of those accounts to the rest of the Committee, and to Jimbo Wales, but are not required to disclose them publicly.
  • Each Arbitrator and Magistrate will make their own decision about how much personal information about themselves they are willing to share, both publicly, and with the rest of the Committee.
  • Arbitrators and Magistrates take evidence in public, but reserve the right to take some evidence in private in exceptional circumstances.
  • Deliberations are often held privately, but Arbitrators and Magistrates will make detailed rationale for all their decisions public.

[edit] Requests

The Arbitration Committee accepts requests for Arbitration from anyone, and will decide whether to accept cases based on its Jurisdiction as described previously.

The Arbitrators will accept a case if four or more Arbitrators have voted to hear it; unless otherwise specified by the Arbitrator's votes, a minimum twenty-four hour grace period will be granted between the fourth vote to open the case and the actual opening of the case. The Arbitrators will reject a case if one week has passed without this occurring AND four or more Arbitrators have voted not to hear it, or if all but three active Arbitrators have voted to reject the case. Individual Arbitrators will provide a rationale for their vote if so moved, or if specifically requested.

In the case of users whose editing privileges on Wikipedia have been revoked, they can request Arbitration by emailing a member of the Arbitration Committee.

[edit] Process

Each Magistrate will indicate how many cases he or she is able to hear at a given time. As new disputes are brought to Arbitration, they will be assigned to a queue, to be distributed evenly (and randomly) among Magistrates until each has a full docket. If any Magistrate receives a case in which he or she has a personal conflict of interest, the Magistrate will be expected to recuse themselves and pass the case on to the next Magistrate in the queue.

Once the Magistrate has reached a decision, either party may appeal to the Arbitration Committee if they choose. The Arbitration Committee will vote to accept or reject the case. If the vote is to reject, the decision rendered by the Magistrate will stand.

All Arbitrators will hear all accepted cases, barring any personal leaves or recusals. If an Arbitrator believes they have a conflict of interest in a case, they shall recuse themselves immediately from participation in the case. Users who believe Arbitrators have a conflict of interest should post an appropriate statement during the Arbitration process. The Arbitrator in question will seriously consider it and make a response. Arbitrators will not be required to recuse themselves for trivial reasons – merely reverting an edit of a user involved in a case undergoing Arbitration, for example, will likely not be seen as a serious enough conflict of interest to require recusal.

[edit] Hearing

Participants involved in cases heard by the Arbitration Committee will present their cases and evidence as directed on a sub-page of the case page, itself a sub-page of requests for arbitration, titled as "[Username]" or "[UsernameA] v. [UsernameB]" or the like, at the discretion of the Arbitrator responsible for opening the case. Disputants shall be defined as the user or users named in the case or any advocates they identify.

Evidence and brief arguments may be added to the case pages by disputants, interested third parties, and the Arbitrators themselves. Such evidence is usually only heard by the Committee if it has come from easily verifiable sources - primarily in the form of Wikipedia edits ("diffs"), log entries for MediaWiki actions or web server access, posts to the official mailing lists, or other Wikimedia sources. The Arbitrators reserve the right to disregard certain items of evidence or certain lines of argument, most notably if it is unverifiable.

There is usually a grace period of one week between the opening of the case and the beginning of deliberations by Arbitrators. If the deliberations are made public, then outside commentary on the deliberations is discouraged until such time after the hearing has ceased that the Arbitrators define as the period for public commentary on the deliberations.

[edit] Injunctions

At any time between the opening of a case and its closure, Arbitrators may propose Temporary Injunctions, which are binding decisions that shall be in effect until a case closes. Such Injunctions take the form of Remedies outlined below and are enforceable by twenty four hour blocks per violation of the Injunction by those that are affected by it.

An Injunction is considered to have passed when four or more Arbitrators have voted in favour of it, where a vote in opposition negates a vote in support. A grace period of twenty four hours is usually observed between the fourth Aye vote and the enactment of the Injunction; however, Arbitrators may, in exceptional circumstances, vote to implement an injunction immediately if four or more Arbitrators express a desire to do so in their votes, or if a majority of Arbitrators active on the case have already voted to support the Injunction.

[edit] Final decision

During deliberations, the Arbitrators will construct a consensus opinion made out of Principles (general statements about policy), Findings of Fact (findings specific to the case), Remedies (binding Decrees on what should be done), and Enforcements (conditional Decrees on what can further be done if the terms are met). Each part will be subject to a simple-majority vote amongst active non-recused Arbitrators - the list of active members being that listed on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Dissenting votes for and opinions on parts that pass will be noted. In the event of no options for action gaining majority support, no decision will be made, and no action will be taken.

Principles are general statements of policy on Wikipedia, and there is no strict form they take; they will, however, reference appropriate Wikipedia policy pages where applicable.

Findings of fact will be of a form similar to:

  • XXX has/has not engaged in YYY behavior [in violation of ZZZ rule]. (diff of Incident 1) (diff of Incident 2) (further diffs)

Remedies will be of a form similar to:

  • "User X is cautioned against making personal attacks even under severe provocation."
  • "User X is limited to one revert per twenty four hour period on article A."
  • "User X is placed on personal attack parole for a period of Y; if User X engages in edits which an administrator believes to be personal attacks, they may be banned for a short period of time of up to Z."
  • "User X is prohibited from editing group Y of articles for a period of Z."
  • "User X is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of Y."

Enforcements will be of a form similar to:

  • "If User X edits group Y of articles, they may be banned for a short period of time of up to one week."

Remedies and Enforcements, once the case has closed as described below, may be enforced by intervention by administrators, usually in the form of blocks on accounts and IP addresses.

Once a decision has been compiled, and a sufficient number of Arbitrators have reviewed the case and cast their votes, a non-recused Arbitrator may initiate a Motion to Close the case. A Motion to Close shall be considered to have passed once four Arbitrators have voted in favour of closing the case; each opposing vote shall negate one supporting vote. A grace period of a minimum of twenty-four hours shall be observed between the fourth net vote to close the case and the going into effect of those Remedies passed in the case, unless four or more Arbitrators vote to close the case immediately, or if a majority of Arbitrators active on the case have voted to close the case.

In due course, the Arbitrators will review the possibility of additional software-based security measures, but will not request such features at the present time, relying instead on Decrees.

Remedies and enforcement actions may be appealed to, and are subject to veto by, Jimbo Wales.

[edit] Unresolved issues

Deliberately left unspecified at this time. See the sub-pages for discussion:

[edit] See also

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/y/a/User%7ERyan_Delaney_sandbox_fec2.html"