Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment

A second suggestion by Fred Bauder has been added following James F.'s

This is a suggestion made by James F. in a personal capacity, and is not policy, nor an official statement in any way.

I have noticed over the past few (err, 8) months of Arbitration cases that our policy needs, in my opinion, tweaking somewhat. Here are some suggestions:

Jurisdiction
Change Line 3


 * 2. Where a dispute has not gone through Mediation, the Arbitrators may refer the dispute to the Mediation Committee if it believes Mediation is likely to help.

... to:


 * 2. Where a dispute has not gone through Mediation, or the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, the Committee may reject, suggesting that such steps should be taken first, if they believe that it is likely to help.

Add Line 8


 * 7. The Committee has jurisdiction over the official mailing list "WikiEN-l" and the English Wikipedia only; its jurisdiction does not cover the IRC channels, private email exchanges, nor any other arena of conflict or dispute.

Additional amendment to Line 8 [added by Snowspinner]



Add Line 9


 * 8. 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, the Committee has no jurisdiction over the members of the Board.

Requests
Change Line 2


 * The Arbitrators will accept a case if four or more Arbitrators have voted to hear it. 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. Individual Arbitrators will provide a rationale for their vote if so moved, or if specifically requested.

... to:


 * The Arbitrators will accept a case if four or more Arbitrators have voted to hear it. The Arbitrators will reject a case if four or more Arbitrators have voted not to hear it. Individual Arbitrators will provide a rationale for their vote if so moved, or if specifically requested.

Hearing
Change Line 1


 * Litigants involved in cases heard by the Arbitration Committee will present their cases and evidence on a page titled something like "Case of [Username]". Litigants shall be defined as the user or users named in the case or any advocates they identify.

... to:


 * Litigants 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] vs. [UsernameB]" or the like, at the discretion of the Arbitrator responsible for opening the case. Litigants shall be defined as the user or users named in the case or any advocates they identify.

Judgment
Rename Section to "Judgement" (oops)

Change Line 1


 * Once the hearing has ended, the Arbitrators will release one or more detailed Arbitrators' opinions on the case. The Arbitrators will also release a judgment detailing their resolution to the dispute, which will be binding. The Arbitrators will seek to reach consensus amongst themselves on this remedy. If consensus can not be reached, a vote will be taken, with the view of the majority of the Arbitrators prevailing. Majority shall be defined as a decision supported by more than 50% of all Arbitrators who were active at the time the decision was made (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee for the current number of active members). If no option has majority support, no decision will be made, and no action will be taken.

... to:


 * Once the hearing has ended, the Arbitrators will construct an 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 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.

Amendment
Add Section "Amendment"

Add Lines 1+


 * Amendments to the policy are subject to the following rules:
 * Exact suggested wording changes should be suggested on a page, and the presence of the page made well known.
 * Discussion should continue for at least a fortnight.
 * A small straw-poll should be taken of those discussing the suggested amendment; if there is strong support (>70%) for this amendment to go to a vote, a widely-announced full vote should be taken.
 * The vote shall be considered passed when at least 100 users have voted, and at least 80% of the votes are in support
 * When the vote has passed, the Arbitration policy shall be altered to reflect the amendment. This should be widely noted.
 * No changes, no matter how small or insignificant, may be made to the policy without the due process of an amendment being made in the above manner.

Comments on the proposal
Thoughts? James F. (talk) 03:17, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * All looks good to me. --mav 03:56, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If this page is meant for ArbCom members only, I'll remove this comment, but about the section "The Committee has jurisdiction over the official mailing list "WikiEN-l"", how are you going to guarantee that an email user that identifies themself as an editor is, in fact, that Wikipedia user? -- Netoholic @ 03:59, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * No no, "normal" users are of course welcome. :-)
 * As for that, well, the same way that we "guarantee" that particular users are sockpuppets of one another - we don't, really, just make sure that we are satisified that it is highly unlikely to be the case.
 * James F. (talk) 04:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've got some comments -

Firstly, the proposals under "Jurisdiction". I'm not sure about the first one. Referring cases to the mediation committee when mediation clearly wasn't likely to work was a patently stupid practice, and one that thankfully seems to have stopped. However, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the idea of simply rejecting cases, and leaving disputes raging.

While I agree that the second point re: IRC and private email needs to be clarified, I also have some misgivings about this. It seems that "IRC is not part of our jurisdiction" has been the general position of the AC lately. However, in the Lir case, the "Lir is a repeated liar" finding of fact was carried, citing three piece of evidence, two of which came from IRC. As this case was only decided pretty recently, the contradiction concerns me.

As far as the third proposal there, I strongly disagree - it's very unlikely that this would ever happen, but a board member, should they screw up, should be able to be dragged before the AC just as much as everyone else, IMHO.

I agree with the changes under "Requests", "Hearing" and "Judgment" - they all seem to be quite sensible moves to bring the policy into line with current procedure. I dislike the "Amendment" section, however - why should amending the arbitration policy be different to any other? Ambi 09:13, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * All of the changes to the "Jurisdiction" section are to make it better reflect the current situation - the realpolitik, as it were. We have rejected cases out of hand beforehand (and if we weren't able to, then what on Earth is the point of voting to accept them in the first place?) If a Board member screws up, that is a matter for the Board to decide - it's out of our jurisdiction. This is in the same way as that, were the (British) Queen to commit some criminal act, she could not be prosecuted, as the prosecution acts in her name, and for her to prosecute herself makes no sense. Indeed, it would probably precipitate somewhat of a constitutional crisis, but at least if we make it clear in the policy that this is a potential point.
 * As for the amendment, it should be pointed out, I feel, that the "Arbitration policy" is meta-Wikipedia policy: it's policy about policy (specifically, about how it is interpretted, and so on), and so it has been suggested that it should in some way be afforded a more explicit enumeration of the manner of it being changed. I'm not entirely in favour of such a policy, I'm just tabling these suggestions that I've picked up from others as well as invented myself.
 * James F. (talk) 09:33, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest that, "As a body reporting to the Wikimedia Foundation Board, with the ability to direct the Committee to reach a verdict or otherwise act in a particular way, the Committee has no jurisdiction over the members of the Board" is slightly unclear. As it currently stands, it reads that the Committee has the ability to direct the Committee... How about changing "with the ability" to "which has the ability"? --195.11.216.59 09:45, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Oops. Thanks.
 * James F. (talk) 10:09, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jurisdiction
I (Fred Bauder)have some problems with the following:

Add Line 8


 * 7. The Committee has jurisdiction over the official mailing list "WikiEN-l" and the English Wikipedia only; its jurisdiction does not cover the IRC channels, private email exchanges, nor any other arena of conflict or dispute.

Add Line 9


 * 8. 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, the Committee has no jurisdiction over the members of the Board.

I believe it is best if the arbitration committee accepts jurisdiction over all Wikipedia related activities that Wikipedia users engage in. The reason to do this is to be able to consider any matter that affects Wikipedia which involves Wikipedia users. Fred Bauder 10:20, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

I think, as regards editing activities, (not Board activities) we should consider Board members and even Jimmy Wales the same as any other editor. Fred Bauder 10:20, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * If a dispute should arise regarding such a matter that will be an opportunity for them to participate in the common life other users engage in. It might also serve to overcome any reluctance to engage in editing and thus gaining experience of the day to day ebb and flow of the process. Fred Bauder 10:20, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

I would propose that Jimmy Wales, who retains the power to veto Committee decisions, shall not be subject to a case heard by this Committee, without his consent. As other individual board members do not have individual veto power over the committee, I believe they should not be excluded from arbitration. anthony 12:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. This would solve my objections to this area of the proposal. Ambi 12:47, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I would reiterate my stance that Jimbo Wales may be the founder of this site, but User:Jimbo Wales is a user of this site who is to abide by its rules. I see no reason to exclude that user from our jurisdiction.  Frankly, I think Jimbo would prefer to avoid such preferential treatment, and I think it would be good not to give the impression that anyone here is "above the law".  I know if Jimbo did something awful to a contributor at this site (highly unlikely, in my opinion), I would not want to believe that we had no power to censure those actions.  I would argue that, unless Jimbo himself requests this special treatment, there is no reason for us to offer it.  If Jimmy has a reason for requesting it, I'll gladly hear it, but my interactions with him suggest strongly to me that he would feel much as I do about this. Jwrosenzweig 13:48, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * As Jimbo has veto power over the committee, he is above its jurisdiction. If he wishes to avoid this impression (and only he is in a position to do this), he can waive his right to veto the committee in cases where he is involved and he can consent to the jurisdiction of the committee in any and all cases which may arise. Personally, I think he should do this, but until he does the arbitration committee should not waste its time deciding cases concerning a user with veto power over it. anthony (see warning) 14:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I would argue that Jimbo's veto power does not restrict our ability to censure or restrict his behavior as a user of the site. He is not exempt from AC jurisdiction -- rather, he is the one person who is in a position to make our decisions void.  That does not, however, justify us in saying we have no ability to investigate his actions as a user of this site.  It simply puts him in an unusual position -- of course, if Jimbo ever misbehaved badly enough as a user to warrant censure and then vetoed the consequences, I think we'd have ourselves a little problem.  I like Jimbo a great deal, and I'm arguing for this purely out of principle.  No user is exempt from policies here.  No user has the right to "do whatever they want".  That includes Jimbo.  Even if he does have a veto (which he's not yet used, as I recall, and which I would be surprised to see anytime soon), that doesn't alter his agreement to use this site appropriately and obey its restrictions.  Jwrosenzweig 21:22, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with you. And this is mainly an argument about something which is never going to happen.  But I think it would be best if Jimbo explicitly consents to the jurisdiction of the committee. anthony (see warning) 00:34, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I concur with jwros. I think it is good for new users to know that the founder of the site is subject to precisely the same dispute resolution process as they are. Martin 05:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

7. The Committee has jurisdiction over the official mailing list "WikiEN-l" and the English Wikipedia only; its jurisdiction does not cover the IRC channels, private email exchanges, nor any other arena of conflict or dispute.
 * I don't see how you can jurisdiction over the mailing lists since there are no written policies for the lists. Breaking of the unwritten policies of wikien-l should be entirely for the list admins to decide. Perhaps the arbcom could take cases where someone wants arbitration against the list admins, but I think they need to retain jurisdiction over their list. It shouldn't be up to the arbcom to decide who is banned from wikien-l when it has always been the list admins who decide this. Angela. 14:39, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think Angela has a good point. I also think what James was aiming for is to say that during arbitration, evidence from the mailing list can be (and in the past has been) introduced. As a counterexample, evidence from IRC is generally not admissible. &rarr;Raul654 17:48, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think we need to distinguish more clearly when we're talking about what arenas the Committee has jurisdiction over as opposed to what arenas the Committee will consider as sources of evidence. --Michael Snow 20:24, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I think jurisdiction in that respect is fairly well established -- the mailing list is administered by the list admins, and IRC is administered by the IRC admins. It's not our job to enforce wikipedia protocols there, but we do accept evidence introducted from the mailing list (but not IRC, because no definitive account is available). &rarr;Raul654 20:30, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

8. 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, the Committee has no jurisdiction over the members of the Board.
 * I'd rather this were changed to "the Committee has no jurisdiction over Board activities". I am not only a member of the Board, I am also a Wikipedia user and sysop. If I'm violating my sysop privileges, it should be the arbcom who rule on this, not the board. Angela (disclaimers) 14:39, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with the position of Angela, Fred Bauder, and Jwrosenzweig. In their individual capacities on Wikipedia, members of the Board must be subject to the same policies as apply to other users, not given immunity to do anything they feel like doing without regard to community consensus. To the extent that the Board wants to change the application of policies, it would need to do so as a body, collectively and not individually. --Michael Snow 20:24, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * IRC evidence and evidence gathered from private e-mails may, however, be used to support a claim being made about actions on Wikipedia itself.
 * I strongly disagree with the right of evidence gathering and publication from private e-mails. In the word "private", there is a notion that should suggest that this is not a good thing to do. I am aware that some people will just not care, and use/publish these data, but making it our policy is just a bad idea. I think that some editors rights should be respected, and privacy in private mails is one of these. SweetLittleFluffyThing 22:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The Arbitrators will accept a case if four or more Arbitrators have voted to hear it. The Arbitrators will reject a case if four or more Arbitrators have voted not to hear it. Individual Arbitrators will provide a rationale for their vote if so moved, or if specifically requested.
 * I think that this might not be a very good idea, as it could allow team of 4 arbitrators within the first minutes of case starting, just to plain close a case. The case would be closed before any of the other members have possibility to give their opinion on the case. Perhaps a minimal time is best ? I think that if 4 were opposed and 8 approving, it would not matter that the 4 opposing were the first to talk. SweetLittleFluffyThing


 * Juridiction over the mailing list
 * is a bad idea ihmo. The mailing list should ultimately be the last place where things may be discussed. We ban users not because we never want to hear from them again, but only because we think they are bad for the project. Them talking on the mailing lists is not necessarily hurting the project, hence no job of the AC.


 * I've seen no evidence that the mailing list administrators have acted in a way which indicates an inability to reasonably deal with events there, so there seems no reason to add that area to the responsibilties of this Committee. I do expect it to be able to consider, and weigh appropriately, evidence of any sort in making its decisions. Jamesday 23:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * 8. 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, the Committee has no jurisdiction over the members of the Board.
 * I just see not why. We are editors just as anyone here. We can make mistakes (Jimbo just as us) and if we make mistakes, there is no reason we should not go to arbcom. The Committee (and before any sysop if I need to be blocked) has juridiction over me if I fail.
 * This of course, only concerns my activity as an editor on en. Any failing from any member of the board on board activities is the business of the board itself and of the global community. SweetLittleFluffyThing


 * The committee reports to the community, and informs the board as a courtesy, if at all - has it habitually informed the board so far? The Wikimedia Foundation is the hosting provider, not the communities being hosted. The community sets the policies the committee must enforce and could choose to have a policy that this committee may not enforce policy, or that a different committee should enforce them. The committee has authority over both board members and community members for their actions within the community. The Foundation does not have the authority to direct the committee. If the Wikimedia Foundation board decides that it dislikes the decisions, it's at liberty to request that the community seek hosting elsewhere if it is unable to persuade the community. If the Foundation chose to use executive power contray to the wishes of the community, that invites the community to seek hosting elsewhere or to tolerate the conflict until it has done so. The board members have authority within the Foundation, not the communities. Jamesday 23:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The vote shall be considered passed when at least 100 users have voted, and at least 80% of the votes are in support.


 * This seems insufficient. The Committee should be acting by consensus or something very close to it - if the community isn't overwehlemingly persuaded that a change to its policy are wise, they shouldn't happen. 90% or higher seems more appropriate. Jamesday 23:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mr Bauder states, "I believe it is best if the arbitration committee accepts jurisdiction over all Wikipedia related activities that Wikipedia users engage in." I find myself absolutely opposed to such a philosophy for a number of reasons. I feel that the Committee should have jurisdiction over whatever an individual does in his or her capacity as a user, which is to say, through edits to the encyclopedia. Anything done as a private person (for example, suggesting on his or her own website that Wikipedia is filled with errors and is completely useless) should not be punishable by the Committee. To allow censure of "all Wikipedia related activities" is too expansive of the Committee's jurisdiction and restricts too much the personal liberties of the users. Only that which the whole Community of the Wikipedia controls&mdash;that is to say, the encyclopedia, the mailing list, etc.&mdash;should be within, and anything that is not controlled by the Community&mdash;private websites, private e-mails, etc.&mdash;must be without, the jurisdiction of this Committee.

A proposed rule states, "IRC evidence and evidence gathered from private e-mails may, however, be used to support a claim being made about actions on Wikipedia itself." I don't have any problem with IRC evidence, but I do have a problem with e-mail exchange. Firstly, to introduce an offensive e-mail could inflame and prejudice the Arbitrators, and lead the Committee to punish the e-mail (over which I believe it ought to have no jurisdiction at all), instead of punishing the actual offence originally alleged. Secondly, e-mails from third parties should not be introduced, as they constitute hearsay&mdash;the third parties will not be able to be examined or challenged in any way, especially if they are not active Wikipedia users. But thirdly, and most crucially, there appears to be no way to authenticate this so-called "evidence." Parties could merely invent e-mails and introduce them as evidence; there would be no way to determine whether such an e-mail was actually sent, except perhaps by an admission of the other party.

-- Emsworth 23:31, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * In the absence of the other party saying "I never sent that e-mail," however, I think this falls under the heading of assuming good faith. If the third party does say they never sent the e-mail, then the arbitrators can use their judgment. If they think the e-mail is dodgy or unbelievable, they're more than capable of ignoring that evidence. Since arbitration is all about trusting their judgment, this seems very sensible to me. Snowspinner 15:34, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * One could easily invent an e-mail from, for instance, a departed Wikipedian. There is no way to authenticate e-mails. To leave everything to "good faith," I think, encourages too much abuse. -- Emsworth 15:58, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Avoiding counter-claims
I propose limiting deliberations in arbitration cases to issues included in the complaint, excluding countercharges and other matters which may come up in the course of arbitration. If a person complained against comes up with a scattering of countercharges it is very tedious to go through them and requires a great deal of energy for very little return in most cases. Also the reaction of complaining witnesses when they find themselves in the dock for personal attacks or other infractions thus subject to mild sanctions is quite negative and creates a great deal more heat than light. While some disputes may be one on one, many concern an issue which has passed through the Requests for comment procedure. In those cases where three or more users have certified the basis for the dispute the focus needs to be on the issues in the Request for comment. Fred Bauder 13:56, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

If Arbitration policy is consulted it will be noted that it is silent on this issue. While it is implicit in two person dispute that both will have issues, it is not necessarily so in the type of complaint where a group of users are distressed by a users behavior. They may have sinned themselves but the focus is better placed on the main problem. Fred Bauder 13:56, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with the above proposition. Counter-complaints may be made appropriately in inter-personal disputes. But in disputes betwen a user and a significant portion of the community, it seems unfair to penalise those who represent the community. Essentially, the current policy allows the defendant to complain against the prosecutor.
 * So, I think that the following rule may be created: in personal disputes (for instance, A charges B of personally attacking him, and vice versa), counter-charges are to be allowed, but in general community disputes (for instance, A charges B of vandalism, of using an inappropriate user name, of personally attacking a third party, of incorrectly using Administrative powers against a third party, etc.) counter-charges should not be suffered. -- Emsworth 19:31, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think counterclaims should be allowed but with a more formal process. Not allowing counterclaims would force someone to make a completely independent arbitration request which could well result in two ArbComm panels dealing with the same individuals and overlapping facts at the same time, perhaps reaching different conclusions. Clearly, it would be more efficient for the same panel dealing with all complaints coming out of a dispute. Perhaps to avoid frivolous counterclaims there should be a requirement that a) the counterclaim is clearly laid out and b) the counterclaim cannot proceed without the agreement of at least five of the arbitrators hearing the original complaint. AndyL 00:57, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Voting
So, are we to proceed to a vote soon? -- Emsworth 00:54, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure we've attracted enough attention for that. Fred Bauder 03:27, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I've gone ahead and done it anyway...
 * James F. (talk) 03:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Why were the objections above not addressed before the voting started? I still object to the claim that you hold jurisdiction over Wikien-l and none over members of the board. Suggested rewordings were given, but have been seemingly ignored with the original proposal being put up for a vote. Angela. 01:02, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Problems with the language
Don't use the word committee in isolation when you've previously referred to two different committees by name, its ambiguous. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:45, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Spelling
I know this is minor, but the spelling judgment is the first spelling given in Merriam-Webster, and judgement is considered a variant. I don't think it will be necessary to change the spelling of the section from a standard spelling to a variant one. Nohat 01:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)