Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Barkeep49 (talk | contribs) at 15:47, 2 February 2023 (enact). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Use of single and primary sources in Sri Lankan Civil War articles   29 April 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motion name Date posted
Documenting transition procedures 2 February 2023

Motions

Documenting transition procedures

Documenting transition procedures

The Arbitration Committee procedures are amended to include the following section:

Arbitrator access to mailing lists and permissions

Arbitrators-elect must sign the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information and any other non-disclosure agreements required for access to privileged communications before assuming office. All arbitrators are:

At the end of their term, outgoing arbitrators will:

  • be removed from all Committee-managed email lists with the following exceptions:
    • access to the clerks-l mailing list will be removed absent a request to remain, and
    • access to the functionaries-en mailing list will remain absent a request to be removed; and
  • have their CheckUser and Oversight permissions removed unless the outgoing arbitrator requests to retain one or both of them.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator voting (transition procedures)

Support
  1. As proposer. During this year's transition, the committee realized that our transition procedures are not well documented, so when our internal documentation and institutional memories are ambiguous, we're left without much guidance. For example, CheckUser and Oversight are assigned to incoming arbitrators and outgoing arbitrators may request to retain access. This relatively well-known fact is not mentioned in the Arbitration Policy, the Arbitration Procedures, or the CU/OS appointment procedures. In my search of Arbitration-related documentation pages, I only found mention of the assignment in Wikipedia:5-minute guide to ArbCom elections which is not very useful as a procedural document. Beyond internal problems, the lack of documentation is also a disservice to the community because it is not obvious what tools arbitrators have access to or for how long. The goal of this motion is to increase transparency and consistency by documenting in broad strokes what arbitrators and former arbitrators have access to. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I strongly support something that systematizes these processes. For instance an arb declining CUOS would create some issues for the functioning of the committee in our current context and so rather than give a choice that isn't really a choice just make it automatic. Same thing at the end of a term - make things automatic with the option to ask otherwise. I will note that even if an outgoing arb gives up CUOS they would be entitled under our current procedure to ask for it back in the future. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I could write a few paragraphs about why I agree with Barkeep49's substantive analysis, but I really think the "arb insists on not receiving CUOS despite not being required to use them" edge case is not worth spending the effort debating. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Barkeep and L235. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Something of a moral oppose due to the below comments.
    1. I'm a bit late, but perhaps my comment will persuade someone to jump ship.
    2. My read of what has actually been published on meta (ANPDP/confidentiality agreement/global CU policy/even local CU policy; I didn't check relevant OS policies), does not jive with the statements made by some Arbs here that Legal has said such and such. The relevant policies and agreements seem to be careful not to tie access to the information to access to the named CU permission but instead to what the relevant social group has permitted the user to access. And even in the case that we consider such a CUOS-less arb as a "third party", that appears to fall under section "Use and disclosure of nonpublic information" part b.i.
    3. Even if we take ad argumentum that indeed those documents do say you must have the technical permission to have access to the data, that then begs the question of what an ArbCom must do if an arbitrator does want to resign the CUOS tools i.e. we are still in the "too much work is created" frame. A valid response might be "he must be removed from ArbCom under standing rules for dereliction of duties", but I think that's a ludicrous outcome. I can think of no other valid response besides "ArbCom separates all the private data into another pile".
    4. I do recognize these objections are edge cases and that this moves the procedure forward, but I can just imagine a future Floquenbeam testing, and a future ArbCom forgetting, this discussion.
    Izno (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. While I have used the tools, and accept the risks attached to doing so, I don't get involved in appointing CUOS or discussing issues arising as I'm not entirely confident I know enough of the legal distinction between the IP addresses of IP editors and the IP addresses of anonymous accounts, so I'd prefer to abstain. SilkTork (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator discussion (transition procedures)

  • I just want to note and expand here on something I said in-line below. If an arb were to decline the permissions - perhaps because they campaigned on a pledge to do so - it would require large procedural changes to how ArbCom works. This is because data covered by the CU and/or OS permission cannot be discussed with someone who doesn't hold that permission according to WMF Legal. This is true even if they could be granted the permission. Newyorkbrad, for instance, never uses CUOS, but he holds them while on the committee. When he steps off he gives them up and so right now I could not discuss any CUOS information with him. Were he to ask to have either of those granted to him I feel pretty confident the committee would quickly do so, but that doesn't change the fact that right now I can't discuss that data under the m:ANPDP.
    So if there were an arb who refused CUOS, I agree with those who say they could ultimately be seated. To make it truly mandatory would require an ARBPOL change and that's clearly not what's happening here. However, if this no-CUOS campaigning arb were to be elected it would require the committee during the 10 or so days of the transition to completely change how it manages mail to ensure that new CUOS appeals came into a different address than general committee business. Likewise they would be unable to have access to the archives of the lists because there would be CUOS information and arbwiki would have to be completely scrubbed of CUOS related information and a new user group would have to be setup on arbwiki so they couldn't see the content that was deleted. This would have impacts on the other arbs to function as well.
    For these reasons, I think it completely reasonable to put into procedures an expectation that someone will take CUOS when stepping onto the committee. We don't need to write the procedure for what is now be an edge case precisely because, as Donald points out, those who might initially be inclined to do so realize there's not any harm in taking them and not using them. Crucially none of this would get in the way of a different unusual situation - a non-admin arb being elected. A non-admin arb could be granted CUOS without the rest of the sysop toolset. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedits at Special:Diff/1135823418. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion (transition procedures)

  • Is "for use in office" a restriction or an explanation? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a fair amount of discussion about that and whether it's more an "ex-officio" situation or an alternative pathway to appointment. It's definitely not a restriction. I think, as it's used in the motion, explanation is an accurate description. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Barkeep that it's meant as an explanation rather than a restriction. The point of assigning CUOS to arbs is that it's needed to do our jobs of auditing use of those tools, but if an arb is willing and competent no one's going to stop them from doing some CUOS work on the side. So "for use in office" is meant to explain the first part, but not restrict the second part. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my short time as an Arb, back in the mists of time, I resigned the CU tool while still an Arb* because I felt 100% incompetent to use it, and didn't want anyone to think I was either using it, or was available to be asked to use it. It sounds like you're saying this wouldn't be allowed anymore? i.e. part of being an Arb is to be a CU. Is this the intent? Or should there be some wordsmithing? I realize this is fairly low stakes; being required to keep the CU bit while not using wouldn't be a huge ask, I suppose. But I can imagine someone winning on a platform that included "I won't accept the CU tool" for some principled reason, and I'm curious if you're saying they wouldn't be accepted on ArbCom. (*Only an Arb for a few weeks after that, but I didn't know it at the time) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Current guidance from legal is that we could not discuss any CU related information with someone who doesn't hold the user-right. So if an Arb were not to hold the user right we'd have to figure out how to use the B or C list on an ongoing basis in order to separate discussions that the non-CU arb could have and discussions they couldn't. So yes this is worded in a way that takes away that choice. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I'm not blaming you, but... does "You must technically have the CU permission, even though the CU permission is automatically given to all Arbs without question" sound silly to anyone else? I suppose it's easier to just shake one's head than it is to push back against the silliness. But that does have the side effect of allowing layers of silliness to accumulate over time. Still, consider my question answered. The rest is just venting of the "in my day, we had to walk 2 miles in the snow" variety. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You must technically be an edit filter manager to edit filters, even though the edit filter bit is self-granted by administrators without question ;) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure whether to say "touché", or "another good example of silliness!" :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The latter is fine with me, and I realized after sending that I'm not necessarily providing an argument against yours, perhaps just one more example of what you described. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I legit have to agree with Floq. This seems silly. We have had how many arbs in the past without CU or OS because it was offered as an option...like...Arbs still having access upon request is essentially access to the tool & relevant information. The actual text in ANPDP doesn't say it has to be the same access, but be permitted to have the access, to fulfill their duties under relevant policies. This seems like Legal being legally legalistic about a legal issue, and it wouldn't be the first time recently. I mean at the end of the day if lawyers say we gotta do it, fine, but I think a bit of logical pushback is ideal here. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I noted, I agree in theory that meeting the requirements for having checkuser privilege should be enough. I just think it's practical to be able to know when someone had access to checkuser data by looking at the logs and seeing when the checkuser privilege was assigned or removed. isaacl (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone has met all the criteria to receive the checkuser privilege (signed appropriate non-disclosure agreements and has been elected to the arbitration committee "with the support of at least 25–30 members of the local community", as per m:CheckUser policy), then theoretically I don't think it should matter if the arbitrator opts out of actually having the privilege assigned. But as a matter of practicality, I think it's simpler to have the privilege assigned to track the eligibility and the arbitrator can choose not to use the tool. isaacl (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (after EC with above) Floq has a point: there's no requirement to be an admin to become an arb (although the community de facto bundle the two) but there is a requirement to be an admin in order to be a CU. I would be happy to see arb-admin becoming de jure after the community comes to a consensus on this, which should be easy to get. But this is an accidental back-door to that outcome, no? — Trey Maturin™ 20:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "there is a requirement to be an admin in order to be a CU"? For most or all of the appointments, such as WP:CUOS2022, but not as a strict rule as far as I know. Neither policy-wise nor legally (dewiki allows non-admin CU elections, for example). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    TBF is correct, the primary requirement is that the appropriate NDAs are signed (and from WP:CHECK for example, While there is no formal requirement that checkusers also be administrators...). Primefac (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a de facto "strict" rule and this would make that de facto strict rule into a de facto 100% solid requirement. It would, I'd hazard, be better to not rely on case law for something so obviously a bright-line requirement and instead make it a de jure requirement. I can't see the community refusing that in a !vote. Otherwise, it accidentally looks like Arbcom is making its own rules about who can and cannot be on Arbom, which would be troubling if it were actually the case! — Trey Maturin™ 20:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is "de facto strict rule" referring to the requirements already described at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Selection_and_appointment, specifically the NDA requirements? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention that there was a non-administrator who was appointed to WP:AUSC ages ago (bahamut0013, who, to be fair, passed an RFA shortly after being appointed). That said, it's the only case. No other non-administrator has ever been elected to WP:ARBCOM (even though many have run) or appointed to WP:AUSC. Salvio giuliano 21:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But again, just to reiterate the point Primefac made above, there is nothing stopping a non-admin from being granted CUOS. It would just be a matter of ArbCom appointing one or the community electing one. If the community elected a non-admin arb they could get CUOS in the same way any other new arb who has signed the ANPDP would get it. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bar should not be raised here, currently the existing arbcom normally grants CUOS to its new members, but is not required to - this appears to make it required. — xaosflux Talk 21:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I was elected to ArbCom last year, I initially declined CU and OS, but relented with a little prodding. I unfortunately missed the CU training offered, and never used it (I used OS once). An ArbCom member does not need to use either if they do not want to, so I see no problem in requiring that all ArbCom members hold those appointments for the duration. - Donald Albury 22:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We should never force a user to have access they don't want. Is arbcom prepared to evict elected members simply because they don't want this access? — xaosflux Talk 22:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They have to acknowledge their compliance with the m:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information in any case. If arbitrators are being trusted with nonpublic data, they should be able to refrain from using tools they aren't interested in using. isaacl (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I flip the question on you Xaosflux? Is the community happy for appeals of CU blocks to be considered by arbitrators who refuse access to the CU evidence? Cabayi (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cabayi I'd be fine with that - I have no issues with arbitrators privately discussing private things and don't expect that every committee member dealing with something to performs their own complete independent investigation. If someone requests an unblock, I don't think needing 15 more checkuser queries to be run is necessary. — xaosflux Talk 15:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand: the "evidence" can certainly be provided testimonially by other checkusers, and yes I'd expect them to access that testimony - just don't think they need to perform a new personal investigation. — xaosflux Talk 15:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While grateful to the Committee for codifying its procedure for departing members (previously at WT:ACN), I'm very much intrigued by the stated complications and the idea that it's an edge case when an incoming member does not want one or both of CU/OS. Keilana was on the Committee for the 2016–2017 term and did not hold CheckUser. Did those complications exist then, or do they now exist due to requirements since introduced? Given that it is not an edge case, like Xaos above I'm disappointed that the Committee is making it compulsory. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Access to nonpublic personal data policy came into effect in 2018 and created different expectations around how nonpublic personal data is handled. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "use in office" part seems also wrong, following from the complaints I raised above -- seemingly raising the bar that these volunteers are expected to also use these tools. I'd rather that line be changed perhaps
    From
    ...assigned the CheckUser and Oversight permissions for use in office; and
    To
    assigned the CheckUser and Oversight permissions for use in officeunless the incoming arbitrator requests to decline one or both of them; and
  • The "use in office" definitely sounds like a restriction, and isn't necessary for any reason. The community has already deferred who may or may not have CU/OS to arbcom, there is no "reason" needed to be associated with it (at least no more reason needed than to convince 50%+1 of the committee members who could vote on the granting motion). — xaosflux Talk 23:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=1137058820"