Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures: Difference between revisions

This page documents the internal 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 auditing

See also: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee § Procedure

The procedure for handling complaints related to CheckUser or Oversight use is as follows:

1. 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).
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

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:

1. Appeals of bans shall be referred to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
2. Complaints regarding CheckUser or Oversight use shall be referred to the Audit Subcommittee.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. All other messages shall 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.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. The Committee will then schedule deliberations on the matter.
4. 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.
5. 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

The purpose of temporary removal is protective, 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, a normal arbitration proceeding shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances.