Revision as of 00:50, 3 June 2011

The current written arbitration policy dates from 2004 and much has evolved since then. The purpose of the proposed update is to bring the written document into line with existing well-established arbitration custom and practice. The proposed update also reflects the changes and developments in other relevant English Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia Foundation policies that impact upon arbitration.

The proposed update has been reviewed five times by the community, at roughly six-monthly intervals, since it was first drafted in April 2009. Announcements inviting review and comment have typically been placed at: WP:VPP, WP:AC, WP:AC/N, WP:AN, WP:AN/I, WP:CENT and WT:BUR. Because of the broad consultation, it is fair to say that this is a mature document, already attracting broad consensus.

Please note that this is a simple yes or no vote. If you have comments on the proposed update, please make them at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Policy/Update and ratification.

Updated policy

Preamble

This policy governs the Arbitration Committee, arbitration proceedings and arbitration processes. It was ratified by the community on .

The Arbitration Committee

Scope and responsibilities

The Arbitration Committee of the English Misplaced Pages has the following duties and responsibilities:

1. To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve;
2. To hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users;
3. To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools;
4. To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons;
5. To approve and remove access to (i) CheckUser and Oversight tools and (ii) mailing lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee.

Selection and appointment

Members of the Committee are appointed following annual elections organized and run by the community. Candidates must:

1. Meet the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data and confirm in their election statement they will fully comply with the criteria; and
2. Disclose any alternate accounts in their election statements. Legitimate accounts which have been declared to the Arbitration Committee prior to the close of nominations need not be publicly disclosed.

In exceptional circumstances, the Committee may call interim elections, in a format similar to that of the regular annual elections, if it determines that arbitrator resignations or inactivity have created an immediate need for additional arbitrators.

Conduct of arbitrators

Arbitrators are expected to:

1. Act with integrity and good faith at all times;
2. Respond promptly and appropriately to questions from other arbitrators, or from the community, about conduct which appears to conflict with their trusted roles;
3. Participate conscientiously in the Committee's activities and deliberations, advising the Committee of upcoming inactivity if that inactivity will likely last more than a week; and
4. Preserve in appropriate confidence the contents of private correspondence sent to the Committee and the Committee's internal discussions and deliberations.

Any arbitrator who repeatedly or grossly fails to meet the expectations outlined above may be suspended or removed by Committee resolution supported by two-thirds of arbitrators.

Recusal of arbitrators

An arbitrator may recuse from any case, or from any aspect of a case, with or without explanation and is expected to do so where he or she has a significant conflict of interest. Typically, a conflict of interest includes significant personal involvement in the substance of the dispute or significant personal involvement with one of the parties. Previous routine editor, administrator or arbitrator interactions are not usually grounds for recusal.

An editor who believes an arbitrator should recuse will first post a message on the arbitrator's talk page asking the arbitrator to recuse and giving reasons. Should the arbitrator not respond, or not recuse, the user may refer the request to the Committee for a ruling. Requests for recusal after a case has entered the voting stage will not be granted, except in extraordinary circumstances.

Transparency and confidentiality

Committee deliberations are often held privately though the Committee will make public detailed rationales for decisions related to cases, unless the matter is unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal or similar reasons. The Committee treats as private all communications sent to it, or sent by a Committee member in the performance of their duties.

Procedures and roles

The Committee may create or modify its procedures, provided they are consistent with its scope; and may form subcommittees or designate individuals for particular tasks or roles. Where appropriate, the Committee may invite community comment on intended changes prior to implementing them.

The Committee maintains a panel of clerks to assist with the smooth running of its functions. The clerks' functions include the administration of arbitration cases and management of all the Committee's pages and subpages; enforcing Committee decisions; implementing procedures; and enforcing good standards of conduct and decorum on the Committee's pages.

Arbitration proceedings

Jurisdiction

The Committee has jurisdiction within the English Misplaced Pages.

The Committee has no jurisdiction over: (i) official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff; (ii) Wikimedia projects other than the English Misplaced Pages; or (iii) conduct outside the English Misplaced Pages.

The Committee may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Misplaced Pages if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Misplaced Pages or its editors.

The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time.

Requesting arbitration

Requests for arbitration must be presented in the manner designated by the Committee. The Committee may accept or decline any matter at its sole discretion; it will take into account, but will not be bound by, the views of the parties to the request and other interested users.

Forms of proceeding

Standard proceedings

By default, hearings are public and follow the procedures published on the relevant arbitration pages.

Summary proceedings

Where the facts of a matter are substantially undisputed, the Committee may resolve the dispute by motion.

Private hearings

In exceptional circumstances, typically where significant privacy, harassment or legal issues are involved, the Committee may hold a hearing in private. The parties will be notified of the private hearing and be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made.

Appeals

Appeals by blocked, banned, or similarly restricted users are usually conducted by email.

Participation

Decisions are reached by a majority vote of active, non-recused arbitrators. An arbitrator whose term expires while a case is pending may remain active on that case until its conclusion. Newly appointed arbitrators may become active on any matter before the Committee with immediate effect from the date of their appointment.

Statements may be added to case pages by any interested editor. Editors are expected to respond to statements about themselves; failure to do so may result in decisions being made without their participation. All editors are required to act reasonably, civilly, and with decorum on arbitration case pages, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so.

Admissibility of evidence

In all proceedings, admissible evidence includes:

1. All Misplaced Pages edits and log entries, including deleted or otherwise hidden edits and log entries;
2. Edits and log entries from Wikimedia projects other than the English Misplaced Pages, where appropriate; and
3. Posts to official mailing lists.

Evidence from official mediation is only admissible with the express prior written consent of the Mediation Committee.

Evidence based on private communications (including, but not limited to, other websites, forums, chat rooms, IRC logs, email correspondence) is admissible only by prior consent of the Committee and only in exceptional circumstances.

Evidence may be submitted privately, but the Committee normally expects evidence to be posted publicly unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. The Committee will decide whether to admit each submission of private evidence on its own merits and, if admitted, the evidence will be considered at a private hearing.

Temporary injunctions

At any time between the request for a case being made and the closure of the case, the Committee may issue temporary injunctions, restricting the conduct of the parties, or users generally, for the duration of the case.

Format of decisions

Decisions are written in clear concise standard English and usually: (i) outline the salient principles, (ii) make findings of fact, (iii) set out remedies and rulings, and (iv) specify any enforcement arrangements. Where the meaning of any provision is unclear to any arbitrator, the parties, or other interested editors, it will be clarified upon request.

Policy and precedent

The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced. The Committee does not rule on content, but may propose means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated.

While the Committee will typically take into account its earlier decisions when deciding new cases, previous decisions do not create binding precedent. As community policies, guidelines and norms evolve over time, previous decisions will be taken into account only to the extent that they remain relevant in the current context.

Appeal of decisions

Any editor may ask the Committee to reconsider or amend a ruling, which the Committee may accept or decline at its discretion. The Committee may require a minimum time to have elapsed since the enactment of the ruling, or since any prior request for reconsideration, before reviewing it. Remedies may be appealed to, and amended by, Jimbo Wales, unless the case involves Jimbo Wales' own actions.

Ratification and amendment

Once adopted by the Committee, this policy will undergo formal ratification through a community referendum and will enter into force once it receives majority support, with at least one hundred editors voting in favour of adopting it. Until this policy is ratified, the existing arbitration policy remains in effect.

Amendments to this policy require an identical ratification process. Proposed amendments may be submitted for ratification only after being approved by a majority vote of the Committee, or having been requested by a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing.

The Committee is responsible for formulating its own processes and procedures under this policy, which do not require ratification.

Ratification referendum

Please express your preference below by voting in either the yes or no sections. If you have comments on the policy, please make them at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Policy/Update and ratification.

Yes, adopt the new updated policy

1.  Roger Davies 18:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Risker (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Randomblue (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
4. Tony (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
5. — Coren  19:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
6. Baseball Watcher 19:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
7. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
8. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
9. Timbouctou (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
10. Willking1979 (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
11. Jenks24 (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
12. Nolelover 19:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
13. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
14. Doh5678 Talk 19:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
15. MBisanz 19:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
16. Nathan 19:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
17. Ed  19:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
18. Malleus Fatuorum 19:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
19. Diannaa 19:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
20. FT2  19:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
21. Murray Langton (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
22. Kirill  19:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
23. With the caveat that I share Sandstein's concern and hope that the clause in question won't be read as an expansion of ArbCom to oversee all matters. I don't think it needs to be read the way he is reading it, but if does mean that then I'd have to switch to opposing this adoption. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

    No it doesn't mean what Sandstein suggests at all. In this context, it means that we will deal with the conduct aspects of a dispute which may involve other factors. Very similar language is in the existing policy.  Roger Davies 19:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

24. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
25. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
26. elektrikSHOOS 20:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
27. Chester Markel (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
28. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
29. Strobilomyces (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
30. -- RP459 /_{Contributions} 20:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
31. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
32. Avi (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
33. ragesoss (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
34. EdJohnston (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
35. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
36. SirFozzie (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
37. Shell 21:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
38. - Philippe 21:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
39. the wub "?!" 21:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
40. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
41. Kebeta (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
42. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
43. Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
44. We could go on making quibbles and clarifications for years but the core truth of it is that this is a significant improvement on the existing document. Skomorokh 21:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
45. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
46. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
47. AGK 22:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
48. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
49. —Pathoschild 23:56:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
50. EW_ikist 00:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
51. Off2riorob (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
52. – SJ + 00:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
53. Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
54. Dcoetzee 00:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
55. Mailer Diablo 00:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
56. Cla68 (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
57. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
58. Hersfold 02:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
59. Tznkai (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
60. Martinp (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC) (to be clear: I would encourage a minor copyedit around Scope item 1 to address the concerns/comments raised by Sandstein below and FT2 on the talk page, but my ratification vote is not dependent on this.)
61. Voyager640 (talk) 05:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
62. Looks good - the bit about decisions being written in plain English is a good thing to include, as this isn't always done at the moment. Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
63. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
64. Revcasy (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
65. –xeno 13:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
66. Woody (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
67.  – iridescent 14:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
68. Lumos3 (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
69. Echtoran 17:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
70. JN466 18:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
71. Fences&Windows 19:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
72. AlexiusHoratius 21:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
73. Ocaasi 21:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
74. --White Shadows 22:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
75. Geometry guy 22:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
76. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
77. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC) - Not that this will stop ArbCom from creatively reinterpreting their role as they see fit. It's an improvement though.
78. — Ched :  ?  00:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
79. Camw (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
80. œ 01:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
81. GB fan (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
82. --Kleinzach 01:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
83. —GFOLEY FOUR— 01:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
84. N419BH 01:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
85. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
86. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
87. First Light (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
88. Armbrust _Contribs 07:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
89. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
90. Lightmouse (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
91. ... with some mild concern, because my perception is that Arbcom's remit is, very gradually, expanding, and I think there should be a discussion about Arbcom's scope and the potential need for checks and balances; but that concern is not sufficient to stop me supporting the improved policy.—S Marshall T/C 11:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
92. Still leaves much to be desired, but it's an improvement.--Kotniski (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
93. CT Cooper · talk 14:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
94. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
95. On the basis that 'primarily' gives enough wiggle room to allow consensus forming processes, such as that which produced the WP:WESTBANK naming convention, but no further. PhilKnight (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
96. Steven Walling 17:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
97. umrguy42 18:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
98. Yes. I have some minor quibbles here and there, especially about Jimbo's involvement, but overall I support the new language. --Elonka 19:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
99. Support. Binksternet (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
100. Support overall. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
101. Support, hoping that the enforcement of the policy would not be absolute and uniform in all cases, and would allow for some discussion and occasional "wiggle room" as noted by PhilKnight above. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
102. Geoff 22:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
103. Why not? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
104. Paul Erik 23:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No, retain the old policy

1. Only because I believe that in the scope and responsibilities section:

   • Item 4: To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons;

   should read

   • Item 4: To resolve conduct matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons;. Seddon | 19:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

   Seddon, you are assuming that all of these matters strictly involve user conduct. This is not the case. Privacy violations that (in some cases) are unintended, threats of harm to self or others, or similar matters are not strictly conduct issues. If something related to privacy, legal issues or similar matters winds up on the Arbcom-L mailing list, there is an expectation that the Committee address it in some way, whether directly, by referring it to WMF General Counsel or other identified staff groups, or by deciding on discussion that no action is required/appropriate. Unlike the general editorship, ignoring such issues is not really an option for Arbcom. Risker (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

   Both privacy violations and threats of harm to others are conduct issues (prehaps the most extreme) and personally I feel are covered by the conduct matters.

   It certainly should not be the position of the Arbitration Committee to handle legals threats themselves. If its that serious then it should be referred to the general counsel, if its not then it can be handled by the community. Otherwise the committee is putting itself at huge legal risk and quite frankly they are not the legal representatives of the community. I am not saying the arbitration committee should ignore such issues, I'm simply saying that it shouldn't be the committee's responsibility to resolve these issues just simply pass them to the appropriate people. Hell they can be handled by committee members individually since you are all members of the community but it should not under the committees auspice. Seddon | 20:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

   This is an old discussion - the bottom line is that the Wikimedia Counsel doesn't exist to handle every query of a real-world nature that passes through Arbcom's inbox. While Arbcom may choose to consult, the cases where they actually need Counsel input are very few. Users worried they are being harassed and wanting advice or whatever assistance the Committee can provide, notable people who engage in socking or other misconduct where delicate handling is best, allegations that need looking into, users who disclose a personal crisis or real-world issue for which they want understanding or a second chance. Arbcom has at times in its 7 year lifespan had to look into all of them. Exactly as Risker says, a lot of things Arbcom sees are serious enough to warrant private resolution by users trusted to keep very personal matters private and balance fairness and project benefit, but which are not "conduct" or "legal"—or even sometimes anything but just sad and human. FT2  20:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

2. The word "primarily" in the clause "a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes" means that this policy establishes the Committee as Misplaced Pages's final binding decision-maker for everything else as well, at its sole discretion, notably not excluding issues of content or governance. This is an epochal constitutional change that I cannot support. It goes far beyond the Committee's remit as a dispute settlement body.  Sandstein  19:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

   Point of information: the existing policy already says "The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes" and that's the basis of the text in the current draft. There is no change in meaning.  Roger Davies 19:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

   If there is significant concern over this, a minor reword (To act as a final binding decision-maker for serious disputes primarily related to user conduct ...) would resolve it. Seems unlikely at this point though. FT2  20:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

   Roger Davies, but the current policy makes rather clear that ArbCom is about resolving disputes rather than about governing Misplaced Pages. The new version does not; furthermore it omits the provision that "The Committee will not hear disputes where they have not been requested to rule", and does not rule out content decisions. Unlike the old policy, the new wording explicitly empowers the Committee to make final binding decisions about essentially anything on their own initiative – which makes it, in effect, Misplaced Pages's government. That may not have been the intention, but it's what the proposal says.  Sandstein  20:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

   The binding decision language is so heavily qualified that I doubt that the editor on the Clapham Omnibus would consider it authorised ArbCom to govern anything let alone the English Misplaced Pages. Perhaps more to the point, what makes you think that the community would actually submit to attempts at governance? The torches and pitchforks would be out in no time.  Roger Davies 14:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

   Instead of relying on torches and pitchforks as a means of checks and balances, we should write the policy in an unambiguous manner, e.g. as suggested by FT2, to make clear that ArbCom may make binding decisions about conduct disputes, but not about matters that are (a) issues of content or governance or (b) not the subject of serious disputes. I don't see any heavy qualifiers: the policy simply says that ArbCom is the final binding decision maker of the project, and only very weakly qualifies this by adding that such decisions are "primarily" about conduct disputes. This means e contrario that ArbCom is free to make final binding decisions about anything else if they choose to. That's the plain meaning of the text you wrote, and it's unacceptable to me. (Otherwise, by the way, the policy is fine and I could support it if it were not for this severe flaw.)  Sandstein  06:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

   I also echo this point which is similar in principal to my point. Seddon | 19:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

3. Disapprove of all this plebiscite business. This isn't Switzerland. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 19:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

   I disapprove of this being referred to as plebicite business. Comment on the merits or lack of. Seddon | 20:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

   I disapprove of this being referred to as plebicite business. Why? It's officially being termed a "referendum" – now take a guess where our article on plebiscite redirects to. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 20:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

4. Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

   The clause "..it will take into account, but will not be bound by, the views of the parties to the request and other interested users." makes me worried a little. I'd rather have Arbcom be impartial to the viewpoints of the parties involved and "other interested users". Unless/until someone attempts to convince me otherwise, I see that this line here will create a world of trouble in the future as people will be pointing to this one line and cry foul, regardless of which way the issue was settled and who it favors. Until this is explained away to me, I'm voting "no".--White Shadows 23:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

   To clarify, the clause states that the Committee will take parties' views into account (meaning that we will read and consider them), but that the ultimate decision will be "at sole discretion" and that the Committee is "not bound by the views of the parties"; in other words, it allows us to make independent decisions rather than having to follow the desires of the parties. If I'm not mistaken, this is something you agree with? Kirill  23:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

   I'm a big "strict interpretation" kinda of editor when it comes to the role of Arbcom and I hope that this new "charter" will be applied (if it is passed) word for word, nothing more, nothing less. With this in mind, I interpreted it as Arbcom would be free to make decisions based off of the parties' viewpoints. Which would be a disaster in political articles as well as articles that deal with other disputed issues. I do not want Arbcom ruling in a case like this based on the member's own personal options, but rather the arguments and evidence given to them; and I feel that this passage gives them that ability. Perhaps I'm interpreting this differently than others....--White Shadows 03:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

   The "views" here are those taken into account in considering a request (that's the section it's in). They are the statements people already write - their views on the conduct, policy, and project matters salient to the case and decision, and reasons why it should be accepted or declined. Which indeed are to be "taken into account" –people write statements giving their views and commenting on the significance and background of the issues in the case, in order to have them taken into account. I don't see Arbcom taking this to mean instead "views on the topic matter of the disputed articles are a factor in whether to accept or decline a case" (!) and "interested" here means the everyday sense of "attention" or "desire to get involved", not "financial or other real-world connection". FT2  12:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

   Alright then. Thank for you taking the time to further explain this passage. I've removed my opposition vote and I'll be supporting the new rules.--White Shadows 22:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

5. Given the low bar of 100 supports to "ratify", this comment is probably pointless. Nevertheless, I think there is something new in the jurisdiction" section: "The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it". The AC exists to resolve disputes that the community cannot. At least in principle, if the community can resolve a dispute, the community ought to be able to remove that dispute from AC's jurisdiction. One could view AC's authority as delegated by the community, but that view appears contrary to the current wording of the "jurisdiction" section. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

   It's not new at all. It merely refers to the ongoing stuff that arises out of a case: amendments, clarifications, enforcement, and so forth, which have always been handled by ArbCom. Traditionally, the committee also lets jurisdiction lapse over time: for example, major resurrections of cases are dealt with as new requests (cf. the four Scientology cases), each need their own community attempts at resolution.  Roger Davies 13:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

   Some comments on the talk page, as well as some historical background on the latter. FT2  09:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

6. Opposing mostly due to the content/conduct distinction (yes I've read the above replies). Formally expanding the jurisdiction of the committee to content matters is bad news. Otherwise I don't have any real problems and the procedure is due for an update. Protonk (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

   But it doesn't do this at all. Policy and precedent explicitly says The Committee does not rule on content ....  Roger Davies 04:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

   The text of points 1 and 4 leave this open to interpretation. And given the willingness of the committee to rule on content matters in the past I don't really doubt such interpretations will be made. However it is both a minor point and unlikely to actually change anything. Of deeper concern is the opacity in most decisions made privately for legal, privacy or "other" reasons. Protonk (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

   The text doesn't say "other" but "similar", i.e. harassment, mental health and so on. If there were a way of dealing with them publicly, without making matters worse for the editor concerned, I'd love to hear it. In fact, the committee makes very few decisions indeed of this nature.  Roger Davies 06:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

   It isn't the scope that bothers me but the efficacy. Your track record on handling private matters without causing them to blow up in your face ("your" being my shoddy shorthand for all the arbs) is pretty poor. I don't think the answer is to avoid handling them and I fully understand that some blowups are unavoidable, but you guys seem to be unconcerned or unaware that reticence to give information where it is needed invites plenty of problems. Take your last two de-sysoppings as an example. The first one was probably going to blow up regardless (though you never did publicly resume that case AFAIK) but the second seemed kind of tone deaf. Protonk (talk) 06:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

   I agree that we are sometimes not good at getting decent rationales out speedily but a great deal of this is down to the logistical difficulty of getting 18 volunteers scattered in different zones all around the world, and doing things in their spare time, to agree a joint statement. If the text changes during the process and needs re-approval, even getting something simple out can take two working days to get majority support. This is something we are working on though.  Roger Davies 07:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

   Also the text of scope item #4 is disconcerting. While the committee obviously handles these matters right now (and I don't think the word conduct is needed), they are pretty bad at it, frankly. Protonk (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

   Comment on the latter on talk page. There's also a substantial biasing effect: by definition they aren't public and those that go well often won't become public. FT2  04:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

   I'll leave a comment there. Protonk (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

7. Oppose per numbers 3 and 5. I'd love to have an option where the community can actually discuss this rather than the details being set out in secret, but whatever. I disagree with those points because I feel that they lie within the scope of the community, not a cabal of editors with limited accountability to the rest of the community. I elect members to ArbCom to settle disputes, not to run the wiki. Thanks, Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

   If you can suggest a way of publicly discussing conduct issues involving intensely private information in open fora, without doing more harm to the subject/victim, I'd love to hear it.  Roger Davies 05:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

   For requests for de-adminship, I assume? If there is some absolutely hideous abuse of the tools which involves such info, then perhaps that could fit into arbcom's scope. However, dealing with regular de-adminship requests and requests for checkuser and oversight rights is a definite no from me. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

8. I think that the criteria for being a party or for naming a party needs to be reworked. Racepacket (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
9. Per my comments on talk --B (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
10. Fuck no. As someone who was subject to FT2 (talk · contribs)'s secret, in camera, unethical, and irresponsible Arbcom hearings a few years ago, from my point of view, giving ArbCom any powers to do anything in secret is reprehensible. Remember, there was nothing privileged or confidential about me that prompted FT2's inappropriate actions. NOTHING. There are other Arbcom members who have the same moral fiber as FT2, so how can we trust them? Do we have to trust the strength of those Arbcom members like Casliber who actually has backbone? Let's remember there were strong Arbcom members three years ago when FT2 singlehandedly decided to play judge jury and executioner, and from my perspective, there are new FT2's on the Arbcom now. Bring to the open PERIOD. Because as FT2 proved so well, secrecy breeds power hungry behavior. OrangeMarlin 00:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

    I make that 6 mentions in as many lines. You might want to remind yourself of the committee's comment at the time first, and remember I spent most of the rest of that year trying to reform Arbcom's internal procedures to ensure it could never happen again - which is the true test of a regret. The issue here is whether this is a clearer policy and better guidance than the existing 2003/04 policy. This one formally makes private hearings "exceptional" and only in very limited cases (eg privacy, legal, harassment). The old one didn't. This one sets arbitrator conduct standards (which I requested were strengthened in the 1st draft). The old one had none. The committee now has formal procedures to ensure key practices are agreeable and documented. Then it had none. It does still allow for private hearings in rare cases - but I think on reflection you'll agree a case like yours hasn't happened before or since, so clearly a large part of the desired change has happened. The idea got through. FT2  00:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't fucking care what you say, because you can't speak the truth about anything. You were fucking wrong, and you know it. You have the moral fiber of an ant. OrangeMarlin 00:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages arbitration