Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee code of conduct

Applies to all

Other than IDing to the Foundation, this proposal essentially applies to everyone. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• True. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't apply to everyone. For example, editors often know or suspect who has socks, but they're not obliged to tell the Committee. This proposal makes clear that ArbCom members are so obliged. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

How does it say that? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"Where a Committee member becomes aware of a serious violation of policy or of the Committee's decisions, that member is obliged to inform the rest of the Committee ..." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(have not read all of below). So the require to inform the rest of the community is in regards to information gained after joining. Old knowledge is exempt? Note: I am not opposing, just asking questions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That strikes me as the heart of the proposal, and why it is so important. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Slim, but I think that I'm with SmokeyJoe in (essentially) opposing this. This seems like a knee-jerk reaction against one particular incident, and that's almost never a good place to start from. I think that "oppose" is too strong of a characterization, but it at least get's the point across... does WP:CREEPy work?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that most of this applies to regular editors. Ordinary users are not obliged to inform the ArbCom of known sock accounts, nor are they expected to uphold Wikipedia rules on and off wiki. But most of it does apply to users in any significant position of trust. Maybe an "Administrators code of conduct" needs to be drafted too.

To SLR, I agree. Individual arbitrators have no special authority. The authority rests with the committee. Arbitrators should not be acting as lone agents with ArbCom badges. If they become aware of serious violations of WP policies they should share that with the whole committee rather than squelching it for a year.   Will Beback  talk  10:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's another round of instruction creep to me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree this seems unnecessary. Arbs should be following the spirit of the Wikipedia anyway, and go though an application/vetting process. This is clearly a reaction to "the Casliber incident", which didn't need this policy in order to resolve itself. How would it have been different if it did? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

At first glance

• I see nothing objectionable in there, and indeed this closely tracks what I clearly perceive as my ethical and moral responsibilities (and the community's expectation of them).

  There is a problem in the wording of "If the recusal of a Committee member is requested by an editor in good standing, it should be granted except in extraordinary circumstances.", though, in that it does not take frivolous or tactical requests for recusals into account. — Coren ^(talk) 10:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict)(Started separate section on same topic but pressed submit after Coren evidently) The recusal bit seems a tad strong as presently worded. It doesn't include any requirement that the request be reasonably justified (or indeed justified at all!), and given that the "good standing" status of editors is usually in question by the time things reach ArbCom, exactly who would be able to make a recusal request (and how their eligibility would be determined) seems vague at best. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Needs clarification per the above. Do requests from parties to a case have any special status (either more or less likely to be granted)? Does being before arbcomm affect your "good standing"? What, in the current wording, is to stop one party requesting recusal of all arbs? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
      • • Requests from a party are taken more seriously. However, picking a quarrel with an arbitrator, say by abusing them over something, then requesting recusal should not work. Fred Talk 13:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I suggest letting the Arbcom decide issues of recusal. Arbitrators should not recuse simply because someone demands it. It's too easy to try to game the system that way. Let their peers judge the matter.   Will Beback  talk  11:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Should the question of enforcement and penalties, if any, that I raised below, also be left to the committee? It strikes me that that could be OK, but it needs to be stated rather than assumed. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
          • If everything is going to be left to the discretion of the committee, the entire thing becomes rather pointless William M. Connolley (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In the end everything IS left to discretion, of editors, administrators, and the committee. It is not pointless to create a culture where responsible behavior is expected. Fred Talk 13:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement?

Since this is obviously driven by the User:Casliber situation, some questions arise. The most obvious is, "How do you treat non-compliance?" There's no hint of any penalty. The most it says at the moment is that the committee member "should resign". Well, what if he doesn't resign? What if he makes a wikilawyering case of some kind? Such as over just what "serious violation of policy" means? And what if he confesses rather than the facts being discovered by someone else? Should he still resign? Or does that confession "fix the problem"? In short, how would this rule have been applied to someone like Casliber? If the answer to that question is uncertain, then the value of the CoC is also uncertain. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea is that there is a lot more pressure to resign in a case where the arbitrator has clearly failed to meet stated community expectations than one in which they have violated individual editor's expectations. Sam Blacketer for example was personally fine with non-disclosure of his previous accounts because he felt he needed to justify it only to himself – this code makes it clear that arbitrators must justify potential misconduct or irregularities to the community/the rest of the community/a selection of trusted editors at minimum. If this code had been in place nine months ago, Casliber wouldn't have had a leg to stand on; his decision not to reveal the undertow's block evasion would have been a bright-line offence rather than a personal judgement.  Skomorokh, barbarian  11:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) No idea what the Calisber situation is, but I would have thought everything in this proposal is either obvious enough not to need saying, or else potentially abusable (like the recusing thing). I'm all for a fundamental overhaul of what ArbCom does and how it works, but this code seems like instruction creep to me (in an area where instructions have crept much too far already).--Kotniski (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You and many others might think all this is "obvious enough not to need saying", but Casliber apparently thought disclosing their knowledge of a block-evading editor acquiring admin access was a question of personal judgement rather than requirement. Similar mechanics in the Sam Blacketer and FT2 cases. That seems sub-optimal.  Skomorokh, barbarian  11:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski, you're right, it is obvious enough not to need saying. Nevertheless, we find ourselves having to state the obvious. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

All right, if it's genuinely needed, I've no strong objections. (There are a few other obvious things about ArbCom that I'd like to see stated as well, though, but that will have to happen somewhere else.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is supposed to be about a code of conduct. If you've got some serious suggestions, as opposed to snide remarks (and I can think of a few myself at this point), this would be the place to make those suggestions. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already made some, at WT:Arbitration/Policy/Draft - a page which incidentally could do with some arbitrators' eyes, as questions are being asked about what the current situation is.--Kotniski (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

removed bit

I removed the bit that would oblige the committee to act on a disclosure as essentially they cannot be bound in that way and the function of this is to record the expected ethics. Ethic requires disclosure but it must be left to the committee to decide how to act on that disclosure. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Then the CoC should specify that it's up to the committee to decide how to act. If the CoC does not say that, or does not otherwise address the question of consequences, then it's not a code of conduct, it's merely a suggestion of conduct. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Its an ethics guide. the ethic is the disclosure. The action is down to the committee Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Recusal

If the recusal of a Committee member is requested by an editor in good standing, it should be granted except in extraordinary circumstances.

Not workable as crafted. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you say why not? I've only rarely seen requests for recusal that were clearly unreasonable. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You would see a lot more if you had such a rule in place.--Kotniski (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think seeing some more would be a good thing. Editors are often reluctant to request it in case it's held against them, but people really shouldn't be made to feel that way. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not say that it has to be done on the basis of a request only, but it could be put into a !vote as a special part of the workshop, followed up by an Arbitrator !vote in the Proposed decision. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be a solid reason for the arbitrator to recuse. As worded, the parties to a case could hand pick who hears the case without there being any reason other than they think that they would rule in manner that they would not like. Also, the "editor in good standing" wording is problematic since it is making a value judgment about the parties. There are massively different opinions about who is in good standing and who is not. And editors that are not in good standing should be treated with fairness as well, so they should have their requests for recusal taken just as seriously as everyone else. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

But who is saying there needs to be a solid reason, or that an editor having no faith in an Arb's impartiality is not a solid reason? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Because that goes beyond gameable. It's shopping for judges. I know that if I wanted to bring someone to Arbitration and make sure they didn't get off easy I'd demand some of my colleagues to recuse that I know are more lenient (and vice-versa, if I was a party to an arbitration case I'd want to exclude those who walk the hardline).

For instance, the fact that I don't believe in the concept of "legitimate alternate account" except in extraordinarily rare cases of true real-world safety is no secret — certainly someone who wanted to avoid being sanctioned for socking would do well to demand my recusal— even in cases where I have had no prior involvement. The point of a committee is to make certain that our (the Arb's) numerous viewpoints and wiki philosophies balance each other to get as close to fairness as is possible — picking the arbs closest to your desired result destroys that. — Coren ^(talk) 12:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Coren, et al. The proposed wording as of this edit is way too easily gamable. There needs to be a solid REASON for the recusal, not just a request. The current situation is too far the other way in that an arbitrator can say "I have no CoI here and no reason to recuse so I won't"... usually public pressure is effective but why go the more drama route? Perhaps some compromise where the reason is put forward (even privately to the rest of the AC if really necessary, although that's maybe not a good idea) and other arbs evaluate and decide? Something that's not the whim of the requester to have them go, or the whim of the arb to have them stay. ++Lar: t/c 13:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There also needs to be a mechanism to force recusal if an arbitrator with a clear conflict of interest refuses to act honourably. How about this as a wording:

Requests for the recusal of any Committee member from any case should be directed to that member in the first instance; Committee members are obligated to provide a clear explanation for any decision to decline a recusal request. In the event that any party is unsatisfied with a recusal decision, s/he may initiate a motion that the member be recused on the workshop page for the case. Active arbitrators are expected to deal with such motions expeditiously, whilst still allowing reasonable time for community input; such motions must be dealt with by the Committee. The arbitrator in question shall be automatically recused should any two Committee members agree that the recusal is necessary in the circumstances.

This proposal retains the present system of first consideration resting with the relevant arbitrator. It allows a formal motion to be put so the rest of the Committee can't duck expressing a view if there is strong community feeling on the recusal. And, it leaves the discretion on what is necessary to other Committee members who may have access to confidential materials. Thoughts / Comments? Other than that I am too wordy :) EdChem (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's more sane, though it probably then belongs in the new arbitration policy/procedure draft more than in a code of conduct. There's still the danger of vexatious demands for recusals but that can be handled by motion as well. — Coren ^(talk) 13:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Pointless, per blue wall of silence. Less cryptically, if two other arbs are prepared to agree that arb X should recuse, then that will happen anyway, without need for policy William M. Connolley (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I added this to the first, and second, draft arbitration policies: "Arbitrators' ability to hear cases neutrally is paramount. Arbitrators must recuse in any case in which they have a significant conflict of interest, such that his or her impartiality in the case might reasonably be doubted by uninvolved users."

This explicitly emphasizes their fundamental duty of neutrality - which is missing - and is also more accurate. The appropriate measure for recusal is whether a neutral, uninvolved, editor familiar with the Wikipedia Community's internal operations and norms who read the case, would be likely to feel a reasonable doubt as to the neutrality of a user helping decide the case. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

when recused...

I think any code of conduct for ArbCom members needs to deal with conduct during cases as well. One issue I feel strongly about is the behaviour of ArbCom members in relation to cases from which they are recused. The Matthew Hoffman case leaps to mind as one where a recused arbitrator engaged in conduct on the case pages unbecoming his office (and indeed, conduct that would have been sanctioned in an ordinary editor). This arbitrator was also reading the private ArbCom mailing list in relation to the case. I know this for certain as I sent a case-related email to ArbCom and received a reply from the recused arbitrator, proving he must have been reading materials accessible to no other party to the case. Such behaviour should be explicitly proibited in the code of conduct, and similarly unethical behaviour (such as use of the private wiki to inform submissions on the case pages) should be grounds for immediate resignation. Recusal should also not be left solely to the discretion of the individual arbitrator - again in Hoffman we saw an arbitrator become self-appointed prosecutor and then suggest this was no bar to act as judge and jury as well... and there was no mechanism to force recusal despite the evident conflict of interest. The code of conduct, if adopted, should include provisions to prevent any repeat of such events in the future. EdChem (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The difficulty is in keeping recused Arbs off the list for all cases, if they're only recused from one. Could a committee member say how they currently handle that situation? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've asked that before... apparently, they don't handle it, and rely on the ethics of the recused arbitrator to not give in to temptation and access what they should not. Well, it is certain that approach was a failure in Hoffman, in that the privileged access was abused. And, we've now had significant ethical questions arise about several other ArbCom (ex)-members, so I think the honour system on this needs to be ended. Either way, the ethical issue needs to be covered by a comprehensive code of conduct. EdChem (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

With copious amounts of adhocery. We've occasionally set separate mailing lists up with members excluded (which raise problems with archival and transparency), or with the (more difficult to maintain and error-prone) list-of-destination-reply-to-all email ping pong.

For 2009 at least I can tell you that members recused on a case have almost never commented on the case itself (even though they were on the same list), and in the rare case that someone slipped they were immediately called to order. This is a case, I think, where reliance on arb integrity, professionalism and self-policing is the only workable solution — though that would not be adequate for a case where an arb is a party to the case. — Coren ^(talk) 12:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec, reply to Ed) I agree. I'm just trying to think of the logistics of it, in terms of having multiple mailing lists, which is what it would boil down to. In theory, I suppose there's no reason not to create a mailing list for each case, with access given only to the Arbs active on that case, then merge the archives at the end of it. But in practice, I don't know how much extra work that would entail. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This issue is at the heart of the reason that recusal should not be made for trivial reasons. Depending on the reason for the recuse, the situation is handled differently. If the arb is a true party to the case, then more measures are taken to discussion issues without them seeing the internal discussions. Using email threads occasionally instead of using the mailing list. Using a second email list on occasion. But the primary way is that we use email subject header to alert the arb to the topic of the thread so that they will not read and accidentally reply. Since most often they are not a party but recusing because of not feeling like they will be a good judge in the matter, using subject headers works okay. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I just ask what the purpose of the mailing list is? Is it just to protect confidential information? Or is it to decide on strategy away from the prying eyes of the plebs? In my view it should only be for the former purpose, and in that case, it's particularly important that access be properly restricted, even if it means the additional complication of setting up a new list for each case.--Kotniski (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The mailing list can be used for confidential evidence / submissions / comments, but beyond that, since only the current Committee (plus Jimbo) have access, what else is exchanged is open to speculation. Strategising could also occur on the confidential arbitrator wiki.

Can we all please bear in mind that there are two separate issues here? The first is that the code of conduct must clearly make accessing confidential information by a recused arbitrator a significant ethical breach. The second is how any restriction of access to the information is to be achieved on a technical level. When the arb-wiki is considered along side the mailing it becomes clear that the second is a substantial challenge, but it is also the less important here. Even if an honour system were maintained (which I don't think is appropriate, but nevertheless), I hope there would be general support that the first issue needs addressing.

As an aside on just using subject headers, my email in the MH case used the case name in the subject line, and despite this fact the recused arbitrator read the email and responded to me concerning it - and the arbitrator in question was the initiator of the case and submitted evidence. Thus, the ethical breach was not one where recusal was just because the arbitrator felt he "would not be a good judge in the matter". I might be more sanguine about an honour system if I had any sense that the current Committee saw a breach such as the one I have described as an example of seriously unethical conduct. EdChem (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Recusal, as I see it, means not participating in a case in which one has a conflict of interest. In other words, the recused arbitrator does nothing that will influence the outcome of a case. There is no reason why a recused arbitrator can't follow the case as the way it is handled will often impact on other current cases. However, a very different situation arises in a case to which an arbitrator is a party: in this instance, the arbitrator-party should not really follow discussion about the case as foreknowledge might influence, albeit sub-consciously, the way the arbitrator-party subsquently behaves.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

One thing I would like an arb to clarify: when "recused", that arb is permitted to read mail related to that case (even if the use of subject headers discourages this, per Flo above) but is forbidden to send mail related to that case? And this is respected in practice? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That is how it normally works, yes, and as far as I can tell it's been respected almost religiously by the current committee. There have been a few slips (arbs are mostly humans), but the appropriate trouting unfailingly followed. — Coren ^(talk) 17:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bring the two pages together

In fact, since this code of conduct doesn't look like it's going to be that long, and naturally forms an ingtegral part of the arbitration policy, why not just make it (or discuss making it) a part of that policy? I mean, merge this proposal with the other page I mentioned earlier: WP:Arbitration/Policy/Draft? --Kotniski (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to see this kept separate. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The approach that I think works best is having a basic Code of Ethics for all Functionaries, including ArbCom. And then having the ArbCom policy include specifics related to Arbitrators. ArbCom started working on a Code of Ethics but it got put on the back burner during the time when our numbers got thin this summer due to holidays. We need to revive it again. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If you see below, you'll see how complex that could become. I would prefer to see the functionary aspect dealt with separately. We need something lean and clear for the ArbCom. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The approach that you are using is not workable. There needs to be a Code of Ethics based on standard Ethical Principles. Writing a detailed rigid Code of Conduct that cover all situation in a level of detail that you are doing is not practical. This proposal is loaded up with instruction creep that will paralyze the Committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Which aspect of it would paralyse the committee, as an example? It looks fairly straightforward to me. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm

I have strong concerns about this draft.

I'm on the cutting edge and forefront for admin standards, and for arbitrator and functionary conduct standards. I added conduct standards to the admin policy when that was drafted, and to the draft arbitration policies. I also stepped down this year due to an issue that this proposal would have covered. But this proposal is not well thought out.

• Public disclosure of all past accounts: An editor in good standing changes account to avoid harassment, or quietly ceases editing with their real name to avoid any issues that may result. Two years on they wish to stand for Arbcom and are widely seen as a capable and desirable candidate. There needs to be disclosure of some kind of all past accounts, but an exclusion from public disclosure for good cause.

Proposed fix: "All past accounts must be disclosed. Accounts used within the last year [or with block logs or RFA/ANI/RFC/RFAR?] must be disclosed publicly; accounts unused for a year [or where there are exceptional privacy-related circumstances?] may be disclosed publicly or to the Arbitration Committee."

• "Any other issues": We don't conflate on- and off-wiki matters. That a user off-wiki is this or that person, an abortionist or activist, a criminal or saint, none of that traditionally matters provided they edit appropriately, do not import their issues, and avoid COI. This proposal basically says a candidate will be judged on their off-wiki life. They have a criminal conviction for larceny or GTA, they live in Uzbekistan which has a sensitive political climate, they have a prominent divorce... what exactly will an "issue they should disclose" be?

• "...and to uphold the rules... off-wiki..." which in practice means what exactly? Off-wiki is a very big place.

• "Members who violate this code of conduct are expected to resign immediately": Violate in whose judgment? This isn't a popularity issue, and the issues that may come up will often not be fully detailed to the public. So who will judge whether it's a violation? And whether it was in good faith, a mistake or lapse, or bad faith? Issues of this kind are far too variable to be this undefined and black/white.

• "...members should ensure that any member in violation resign quickly...": Not only they must resign if deemed "in violation", but others become complicit if they take time to consider it, get evidence, and determine their view, even if the matter is sensitive or complex. When an average arbitration case or motion can take weeks or months, how practical is this wording?

Consider Lar/SV in 2008 and suppose Lar had been on Arbcom. Would these wordings have been practical for that complex case?

• "Where a member resigns under a cloud, resigns preemptively to avoid being forced to resign under a cloud, or has his membership removed by the Committee, he will lose his checkuser and oversight access, as well as access to all functionary and arbitration related mailing lists.": I've seen this first hand. I myself stepped down because of a conflict. There was information the community wanted; I was prepared to disclose it to Arbcom (which I did, and they accepted it) but not to the wider community, as it was privacy related. So I stepped down, not due to malfeasance -- no arbitrator has suggested I acted wrongly -- but because it was unfair to the 2009 committee to drag them into the issue, and because no better resolution seemed likely and no good advice was forthcoming. No concern by any knowledgeable person as to integrity has been raised or sustained. Most of the functionaries list will probably endorse (if asked) that I'm one of the most experienced, and capable, in sock farm handling, and highly active in good quality functionary business. Were I in bad faith I would have been removed regardless of policy wording. This section would change that by making removal mandatory, and likely based more on public perception.

I think in terms of a conduct norm, we could do better. But in terms of deciding whether a breach took place, and how serious it was -- the public community is not always going to be able to determine that, nor to determine whether it was a lapse or a gross deliberate breach. Try this:

Arbitrators even more than other users, are expected to act in good faith and to use their access appropriately and to a consistently high standard, both in public and in their off-wiki dealings related to Wikipedia and the community. They are expected to carefully avoid conflict of interest, and avoid the appearance of using their position to gain advantage in a conflict. An Arbitrator who may have a conflict of interest, or may be perceived to have acted improperly, may be required to give full disclosure to the Arbitration Committee of all salient information, including any private and personal information they wish taken into account. Deception in such a discussion is grounds for immediate removal of Arbitrator status, as is a finding of gross or persistent breach of the expected standards and norms, or any serious misuse of privacy-related tools. If the breach of trust is serious and lacking exceptional circumstances, the Committee is likely to withdraw access to all privacy related tools.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I'm glad to see a little more process in there now. I think the ultimate solution is a third party to decide on matters of CoI, but I suppose that's asking a bit too much.

On the other side, we also need to guard against the scenario in which litigants strategically attempt to remove any arb they think will not be sympathetic to them. Tony (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Some comments

I haven't read any of the above discussion, but having reviewed the page, I do have some concerns. Namely, this seems to unfairly single out arbitrators when really we should all be striving to behave appropriately. Similarly, I believe this guideline would imply that arbitrators are some sort of superhumans would never make mistakes. In my opinion the community should be more tolerable of well-meaning editors/admins/bureaucrats/arbitrators/functionaries who mess up occasionally. Additionally, some things don't have to be written down; indeed, certain issues are best left unwritten. It's common sense that people in positions of "power" should handle their position responsibly and respond with integrity when their status is brought into question. While I don't have any specific objections to this page, I think some cleanup may be needed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

We do have wmf:Code of Conduct Policy that is supposed to be a guide to all volunteers. Maybe just codify that into a enwiki policy. MBisanz ^talk 15:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That and a whole list of wmf policies do not need ratification here; they apply automatically in that they may not be ignored. At the top of each of them: "The content of this page is an official policy approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects." - Hordaland (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So then a soft-redirect with a policy category? MBisanz ^talk 18:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Upholding ArbCom decisions

I agree, sadly, that something like this code is needed. I think that it is particularly important to say, in writing, that ArbCom members have to obey existing ArbCom decisions (as obvious as it seems), and that makes the second-to-last section of the proposed document especially important. Right now it says: "Where a Committee member becomes aware of a serious violation of policy or of the Committee's decisions, that member is obliged to inform the rest of the Committee." That wording appears to limit the obligation to inform to serious violations of Committee decisions. I suggest that any violations of existing ArbCom decisions need to be revealed. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Arbcom has stated at one time or another, that pretty much every Wikipedia norm is to be upheld. I know that's not what you are saying, but give careful consideration what should be mandatorily reported, and to the delicate situations that result.

Here's a second example: User X has bad blood with some arbitrator, got blocked/banned (he believes unfairly), created a 2nd account and is now editing calmly. He knows if it blows up he'll be seen as evading, and wants to prove he is now editing well, without causing drama. He tells an arb about it in confidence, to be open, and get advice. if that arb is mandatorily required to tell the other arbs, he either has to reply to the user's email "Dear X, thank you for your email, I have unfortunately had to tell the entire committee..." Do you think well meaning users will be more or less likely to confide and seek advice, if they know that's what must happen?

And a third example. I was told about a serious socking case by a user who thought it was abusive and wanted action taken. It was a very sensitive case. The only reason I was told was because the user said "Will you keep this to yourself" and I said "I will listen to it, but if it's bad I might have to take action at some point". if my answer had been "sorry, no, I will have to tell the entire committee (one of whom was a close friend of the sock user), do you think I'd ever have been trusted to hear the case?

So in brief, no.

• There must be discretion to hear first, then judge what to do. Arbs are selected for judgment; if an admin can judge when to block or not, when to consult or not, so much more are Arbitrators trusted by the community to make those decisions as well.
• There must be room for users to consult quietly on delicate matters in private.
• Users will not pass on concerns and abuses for handling to uninvolved arbitrators, if they have a concern that there are any other arbs friendly with the accused user and there was a mandatory rule that those arbs would automatically have to be told too. (A lot of concerns get told to just one arb, who the user knows and trusts.)
• Some (very rare) situations are too sensitive to tell 10-15 uninvolved users about it as soon as a concern arises, even at Arbcom.
• There is ambiguity at what point an Arb should disclose, when they have enough suspicion or evidence. This requirement would ask Arbs to be judged retrospectively, perhaps in the light of later knowledge ("it just wasn't obvious as a big deal at that point").

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. But I still think that leaves unanswered the question of where to draw the line between where to report or not. Not surprisingly, my initial comment (like most of what is developing with this proposed code) was prompted by what I saw about today's resignation. There, the Arb used his judgment about not revealing something that should have been revealed, and I see this proposal as an effort to avoid such problems in the future. I take your point that the "principles" cited in decisions end up, in sum, covering everything, but the specific sanctions for some of the parties to a decision are much more specific. The examples you cite seem to me not to fall into that area. If, for example, the sock in your third example were a sock of someone who had been banned by ArbCom, then any ArbCom member really would have an obligation to reveal it to the Committee as a whole. I can understand the need to protect the editor who reported it to the Arb, but that is possible here. I also realize that some editors will choose not to report it, if they think their report will lead to action being taken (which, it sounds like, was the case in your example), and that's unfortunate, but they are wrong. If someone is evading a decision, it should blow up. To clarify what I meant, I agree with you that only "serious violations of policy" need fall under this provision, but I believe that any violation of an ArbCom sanction (maybe that's a better word than "decision") needs to be reported, not left to the individual's interpretation of "serious". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify what I mean, the current version reads: "Where a Committee member becomes aware of a serious violation of policy or of the Committee's decisions, that member is obliged to inform the rest of the Committee."

I would change it to something like: "Where a Committee member becomes aware of a serious violation of policy or of any violation of the Committee's sanctions, that member is obliged to inform the rest of the Committee." --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Too much "mandatory-ness" in situations that often don't lend themselves to it. Try something like this:

"An Arbitrator who becomes aware that a user is editing in gross breach of a significant community restriction or Arbcom sanction, or has undisclosed conduct that would be significant in the context of a present case, decision or appeal, should make that information available forthwith to the Community, the Committee as a whole, or to those Arbitrators dealing with the case. If exceptional concerns prevent general disclosure, then they should fully disclose and consult with at least two other Arbitrators of their choice unless agreed otherwise with the Foundation."

Even in the most sensitive cases, there will always be at least 2 arb's (or WMF) one can able to inform and consult with; the issue is not 3 arbs in cahoots so much as one arb making a private misjudgement on a sensitive disclosure. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with you that the issue is one of avoiding private misjudgments. I'm not sure what I think of the increase in detail. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Try this refactor?

"An Arbitrator who becomes aware that a user is likely to be editing in gross breach of a significant community restriction or Arbcom sanction, or has engaged in undisclosed conduct that would be significant in the context of a present case, decision, poll, or appeal, should make that information available forthwith by full disclosure."

"Appropriate disclosure will usually be to the Community, the Committee as a whole, or those Arbitrators involved with the case. In exceptional circumstances precluding more general disclosure, disclosure may be limited to at least two other Arbitrators of their choice. The sole exception is when the WMF has been consulted and agreed otherwise."

(The latter would typically be where there is some genuine real-world legal/police/threats/stalking/repercussion, or similar types of issue, such that disclosure to other editors however trusted, is genuinely doubtful. An Arb in that position may need to liaise directly for advice with WMF's counsel etc, rather than Arbcom.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if there would be consensus on phrases like "gross breach" and "significant community restriction," or "significant violation" as it currently says. My test would likely be whether an editor is actively damaging the encyclopedia, or actively interfering with the reasonable editing environment of other editors. But, I'm sure that others would have a different understanding.

All the same, I still see much more support for the narrower principle that arbitrators not aid anyone in violating policy. An arbitrator may have a friend, or may have a family member, or even a spouse who edits. Ultimately I am not sure what purpose the proposed principle even serves, other than to ensure that nobody tells an arbitrator of anything they are doing in violation of policy, or that the arbitrator may even perceive in this way. I remain skeptical that bare knowledge, without action, should be read as a form of corruption absent any other facts. Mackan79 (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Having slept on it, I still think the longer refactors suffer from being, well, too long, too wordy, to prescriptive in their instruction creep. I think the first of the two clauses of the section, as it reads on the page now, is fine. Taking into account what you have pointed out, I would simply change the second clause to: "Where a Committee member becomes aware of a serious violation of policy, or of any violation of the Committee's sanctions, that member is obliged to, at a minimum, consult promptly with other Committee members." --Tryptofish (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"knowledge"

We should be very doubtful, in light of past events involving mailing lists that were not actually read by their subscribers, of assuming that merely because an arbitrator "was informed" of something, that they actually realize they were informed. That is, we don't want to get into a situation where someone can say, "I sent them an email, therefore they were informed, therefore they were required to do something about it." — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a good reason to continue to say "becomes aware", as opposed to "was informed". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't "becomes aware" susceptible to the same sort of thing? "You were aware of it — I emailed you!". — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a tough question. I certainly understand what you mean, but it seems to me that that is an example of being accused of being aware, but not actually being aware (and I realize as I write it how convoluted that sounds). Is there a better way of saying it? I cannot think of any words that address what a person knows about, without implying some assumption about what is actually going on in their mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

IP addresses

I think the bit about disclosing how many edits you have made as an anonymous IP could be difficult for some. I disclosed two IP addresses in my first RFA, but I don't keep track of every IP I've used, and it is entirely possible that I've made occasional IP edits without noticing it, let alone recording the IP. ϢereSpielChequers 19:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree, it will be especially hard with editors who don't have a static IP. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I remove that wording yesterday. It was not practical. People have no idea about which ips they used. Many people that have used alternative accounts did so because they were off and on users with no strong relationship to the Community yet, so if they forget the name of their account or password they start over with a new account. Many of the these people will have a hard time knowing the details of when they had accounts, the details about there ip, and the number of edits. For these long forgotten or unused accounts this level of detail is not needed, anyway. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Resignation

*Members who violate this code of conduct are expected to resign immediately.

To protect the integrity of the Committee, members should ensure that any member in violation resigns quickly. Where a member refuses to resign, and where the violation is clear, the Committee is expected to remove that member's access without delay.

Where a member resigns under a cloud, resigns preemptively to avoid being forced to resign under a cloud, or has his membership removed by the Committee, he will lose his checkuser and oversight access, as well as access to all functionary and arbitration related mailing lists.

Disagree that resignation is the one and only option for people that breech part of the Code. Nothing in life is that simple..... FloNight♥♥♥ 19:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who violates this code should leave wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC

Sure, for a major breech of trust I agree. But the way this policy was/is written, the expectation are unrealistic. Most of the lapses from Arbs come from lack of time to do the job well. If interpreted literally, we would be forced to do follow up as individuals on every policy violation that is brought to our attention. No other volunteers on Wikipedia have this burden on them. It is not practical. We don't have the time to make sure that admins that asks us for advice about something follow up correctly. Resignation is too harsh for this sort of problem. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that even a major breach of trust need necessarily be followed by leaving the wiki. If someone shows themselves unfit to arbitrate our disputes does that really always mean they can't go back to writing articles? I think we need to allow for the possibility that even a disgraced arb might still be a much respected article writer, gnome or reviewer. ϢereSpielChequers 12:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I largely agree. The times that an arbitrator would absolutely need to leave the project would be very rare. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What do the objectors see as the unworkable part? As I see it, this is a minimalist code at present. I agree that if it gets too complicated, we can't ask Arbs to resign for every tiny breach. But as it stands, all we're asking from Arbs is that they be honest, and don't hide, engage in, or collude with major policy breaches. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the policies and procedures for general workers and volunteers in numerous organizations. While these polices often do contain expectations for the volunteer in their role in the organization and recommendations about how to handle separation from the volunteer job, they do not include language that demands immediate resignation for violation of this type of code. I've changed the wording to better reflect the wording that I see in other policies. But I'm still not satisfied. It needs a rewrite from top to bottom to better reflect the expectation of a demanding volunteer position. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not the way people want this situation to be viewed anymore, because it hasn't worked. The idea of "stepping down gracefully" until you have more time is almost meaningless. We need specificity, and we need to make clear that certain behavior is expected from Arbs. The word "resignation" is not only appropriate, it's important to include it. The recent situation of an Arb not realizing that what he'd done had crossed the line is something he alone can't be blamed for. It's the project's fault because we don't spell out what's expected, and the consequences of getting it wrong. We need to spell it out here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

While that may be your personal opinion, the majority of people commenting did not see the need for Cas to resign. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to step in here and make a few observations, tending towards sympathy for what FloNight is saying. For one thing, Flo's edit adds something useful, which hasn't been commented on. There is the issue of Committee members who are not giving the Committee enough time, which the edit addresses. Given how there seems to be an extremely high workload, this is a useful addition, though one directed at a different issue than the issue that originally prompted the section. The question, then, becomes one of what Flo's edit has subtracted. I note that Roger Davies commented lower in this talk about the perception of criticism of Arbs by editors who have previously been sanctioned by the Committee. As one of the few editors in this talk who has never been an Arb and has never been a party to an action before the Committee, I think we need to be sensitive to this point here. I'd look favorably on adding back language that says that Committee members who commit serious breaches of the code should seriously consider resigning, but I am concerned that a mandate to resign could degenerate into a process for unhappy litigants to seek revenge. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Most codes of conduct/ethics are advisory statements. I looked at dozens of them today of all types. As well, I looked at policies of organizations that use volunteers in positions of responsibility. While they have written policies about placing people in positions and volunteers leaving a position, I did not see codes of conduct that mixed the two together.

Also, it is important to remember that arbitrators are still subject to the regular dispute resolution processes on WP. They have worked well in some instances in the past. Kirill started on RFC on himself last year. There have been broad ArbCom related RFCs. And each member of the Committee was the focus on an RFC at the end of last year. I read the comments and know that other arbs did as well. We also have noticeboards and talk pages where the Community can leave comments and questions. So, I think that there is an opportunity for exchange of information between the Community and a member of the Committee. Only in highly unusual circumstances would an arbitrator need to resign rather than modify his actions based on peer and Community feedback. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this part is too extreme. There are too many things a normal intelligent and trustworthy person could do that would force them, according to this, to resign. We need to concentrate on getting arbs who are astute and dedicated, not faithless goodie two-shoes who stab their friends in the back but are highly skilled at image management. And getting arbs to resign isn't that much of a problem anyway. Look how many have resigned in the past year or so. And how many really had to? Sam is about the only one. The current way actually seems to work in this regard. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Sam stepped down quickly. In my opinion, Kirill and Cas stepped down too quickly. We need to go in the other direction to give the Community and the Committee time to absorb all the facts before we make these decisions. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not just state that opening some sort of thread for community input on if they should resign is required instead of resigning? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I think it should be up to the person whether they want to invite community discussion or not. It's easy to envision plenty of situations where such discussion could be very uncomfortable and counterproductive. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tryptofish. Choose between mentioning as an option, or not mentioning. - Hordaland (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I read his comment to mean that the arb would be expected to get feedback from the Community when she or he is making a decision about whether to stay or step down if their has been a serious breach of the code. If they know that they were going to resign, then I don't think they would be required to do so. It would depend on whether they plan to stay active on wiki whether they wanted to give a complete explanation about the situation. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

'Members must recuse themselves from cases in which they could reasonably be said to have a conflict of interest. This includes holding strong views on the topic at hand...'. I suggest this needs to be clarified. For example, to take a case from the archives: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. That was about a subject which all arbitrators would, I expect, have strong views about. (Or, more recently, the Sarah Palin case. Most people have strong views about her, one way or the other.) Obviously they wouldn't have had to recuse themselves in those cases, but I just think the language could be improved a little to stop people gaming the system. How about, 'Members must remain neutral and impartial in all ArbCom business. They must put aside any personal views they may hold about the topic at hand. If a member feels they are unable to do so, or has a strong personal connection with the topic or one of the involved parties, they must recuse themselves'. Robofish (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems preferential to the current phrasing to me. — neuro^(talk) 23:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Code of conduct

It may be useful for those working on this page to be aware of Wikipedia:Code of conduct (only recently created), which soft redirects to the WMF Code of Conduct (wmf:Code of Conduct Policy). That page might also be a useful model for this one. Not something I spotted myself, but was pointed out to me by someone else. Would be a useful addition in "See also" or something like that. Carcharoth (talk) 07:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The code wasn't recently created, right, only the soft redirect?--Kotniski (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the page history, the Foundation code of conduct dates from October 11th, 2007. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No obligation to act

It leaves a bad taste in my mouth to see people being obliged to act in any particular situation (see Upholding site rules and policies, point 2). Arbitrators volunteers, and there is no justification for imposing such requirements on anybody. Please remember that we're talking about policy violations on a website on the internet, not child abuse (where compulsory reporting actually makes sense, but still only exists in most jurisdictions for people in positions of care). Maybe we should take ourselves a little less seriously. — Werdna • talk 11:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite. Tell that to ArbCom though...--Kotniski (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of that problem, Kotniski, is the number of editors engaged in openly contemptuous long-term sniping at ArbCom. (Usually, but not always, people who've been sanctioned.) It's very wearying after a while, creates arbitrator burn-out (which reduces not improves efficiency), and tends to create a siege mentality. Here's an example.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If you mean me, then my "sniping" is at the institution and the way it works, not at individual arbs. I've tried constructive criticism and suggestions as to how it could work much better, but that just gets ignored - <snipe> ArbCom only seems willing to engage in dialogue within itself, not with the ordinary Wikipublic </snipe>.--Kotniski (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I wasn't talking about you. It just seems to me that so often in these discussions we're in the curious position of the poachers trying to set the rules for the gamekeepers.

As regards your snipe, the 2009 ArbCom has done a great deal more than previous committees to increase consultation and take the community pulse. Maybe there's still a way to go but, overall, I really don't think this snipe is well-founded:)  Roger Davies ^talk 21:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much my feeling, Werdna. I didn't stand to become a wiki-cop 24/7. I'm happy to deal with stuff brought to us through open channels but you'd be surprised how much back-channel email we get that really only amounts to well-poisoning, maliciousness, or moonshine. We simply don't have the time or resources to deal with all this on a "where there's smoke, there's fire".  Roger Davies ^talk 11:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If there's no penalty for violating a so-called code of conduct, then there is no code of conduct. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is saying that major breaches in conduct should be tolerated. In fact, during the past year several arbitrators and other functionaries have resigned or had sanctions because of issues related to their volunteer work. This years arbcom put an Audut subcommittee in place to look at problems and sanctions (including loss of tools) will happen if there a significant problems.

But the zero tolerance for errors in judgment or setting standards at an unrealistic level are not the solution to the underlying issue. Arbitrator burnout, due to the heavy work load and the unusual communication methods, is the main reason that stuff fall through the cracks. We need to continue to make changes that address the work load (such as bringing in more people to assist with checkuser and oversight work), and develop better ways to work smarter. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I say again, if there is no penalty, then there is no code of conduct. My own company's CoC states clearly that violations may result in termination. If you make obedience voluntary, then it's not worth the electronic paper it's written on. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, of course major violation would result in some type of reaction and remedy. Sensible remedies are needed that match the type of violation of the code. But demands for immediate resignation is way over the top and not compatible with developing a culture of collaboration and peer review that is needed in order to develop seasoned leadership in an organization. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Without stating possible consequences, there is no code of conduct. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Flo, can you suggest wording for the resignation section that would be reasonable, in your view? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Flo, I've asked you a few times if you could help suggest better wording, but you keep on removing the section entirely. Also, what is "stepping down"? I see you're leaving open the possibility of return. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A few queries

"Candidates are expected to publicly disclose any previous accounts and current alternative accounts during their candidacy."

1. Does that mean that, as well, arbs should publicly disclose any multiple account they open and/or operate during their term of office?
2. In the light of the current debate at WT:SOCKPUPPET, might there be reasons an arb should be allowed to operate a clandestine account acording to current policy? It says: "If public link is not desired, the user should contact a current checkuser in advance to obtain permission for operating multiple, unlinked accounts." Forgive the omission of "a" as second word; it needs to be fixed some time. Tony (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a minor point -- checkusers can't give permission to run a second account.

Yes, I would say Arbs ought not to be running secret second accounts. Why would they need to? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm having a devil of a time convincing a few users at WT:SOCKPUPPET why the loophole in the word "generally" shouldn't be removed. Reasons for the freedom to operate secret accounts is being put with rigour, let us say. So ... I'm just checking that the intention is that the clause I cited at the top of this section would be irrelevant to arbitrators during their term (they alone would not have the right). It's fine by me, but we need to be clear about it if challenged. Tony (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The same reason as any editor. Remember that most arbs are editors, and many are featured article editors. User X has a family who is <religion or belief Y> or professional colleagues who hold <belief Z>. It's completely their right to operate a second account to separate contentious topics from their main and better known account, and it's their judgment if they feel more comfortable arranging their editing that way. The right to edit contentious topics with a second account doesn't suddenly become unnecessary if they continue FA work while at Arbcom. The issue is prevention of abuse, not rules for rules' sake. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Another matter: The ArbCom draft second policy update (which we can only presume will be the basis for the third draft) contains statements about Arb conduct; what relationship will those statements have to this code of conduct? At least three sections are involved, and I haven't analysed them properly yet. I add the text of footnoted comments because they may be worth thinking about, even if dismissed. First, the Conduct section:

Arbitrators must act with integrity and good faith at all times to retain the trust of the community and maintain the high standards expected of them. They must preserve the confidentiality of (i) private correspondence sent to the Committee and (ii) the Committee's internal discussions and deliberations.

to which I see FT2 has added the following comments: "Could this specify that confidentiality of correspondence must be maintained "both during their service and after leaving the committee"? Add: "This trust is obligatory on each arbitrator both during their term of service and thereafter, regardless of any issues, or any involvement (or otherwise) in the community." Reason(s): Per previous comment. Iron-clad, as much as trust and expectations reasonably can be."

and:

Arbitrators are required to respond fully and expediently to questions put by the Committee and the community about conduct which appears to conflict with their trusted roles.

to which FT2 has said: Prefer: "...with the word or spirit of this policy or the expectations of their roles" (or some such). Reason(s): "Their trusted roles" appears to be quite narrow. Anything whereby an arb's conduct causes concern due to risk of conflict with the word or spirit of these expectations, should be potentially covered.

Under Inactivity, resignation, and removal:

Arbitrators who engage in conduct grossly or repeatedly unbecoming to their position may, after being given a reasonable opportunity to provide an explanation for their actions, be removed from office by the Committee.

to which FT2 has put a comment I'm wobbly about: "Or by Jimmy Wales? If he appoints, presumably he also may wish to retain the right to remove? or he may wish to discuss this with the Committee before deciding. Noting it as a point to be clarified."

And under Recusal, which may be too long to quote here. Tony (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator stress

I am sorry, but I find this section to be so unrealistic that if any candidate relied on it, I would be embarrassed. Being honest would be of much more benefit. Let's be honest enough to say that arbitrators have been harassed in the past, that they are likely to be harassed in some form during their term of office, and that much of the harassment that happens is outside of the control of Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

hmmm First, I think we are talking about two separate kinds of harassment. Arbs are subject to both the off wiki type that Wikipedia can not do much to control, and the more common on wikihounding that can be a persistent problem if some editors don't let go after they are sanctioned.

Both types of harassment require arbitrators to self monitor themselves to manage their stress level. Maintaining composure and decorum while people persistently snipe can be difficult. I think including some wording that relates to this is good because we need for arbitrators to be available and not tune out. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

COI

"This includes holding strong views on the topic at hand"

Not relevant, or more accurately relevant in reverse. The matter at hand is user behaviour, any Arb who does not have strong views on user behaviour is not likely to be an Arb. Moreover Arbs are expected to rise above there personal feelings on whether it's Slitheen or Slytheen or other agendas of the parties. Rich Farmbrough, 17:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

I think the idea here, Rich, is that it might be difficult for an Arb who is strongly against abortion to sit in judgment of a strongly pro-abortion editor, for example. It seems fair to both sides to expect recusal. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Resignation again

This is an important section and we need wide input on it, I think, if there is disagreement. In the meantime, I've removed the "stepping down" language as too vague. The page currently reads:

==Leave of absence and resignation==

• Arbitrators unable to perform their duties, for example because of a heavy workload or other commitments, should take a leave of absence.
• Where a leave of absence becomes extended, the arbitrator is expected to resign. Resignation will include being removed from all Arbitration Committee mailing lists and channels. Arbitrators who have resigned and who wish to regain a position on the Committee must go through the normal channels by standing for election.

===Resigning under a cloud===

• Where an arbitrator resigns under a cloud, resigns preemptively to avoid being forced to resign under a cloud, or has his membership removed by the Committee, he will lose his checkuser and oversight access, as well as access to the Arbitration and functionary mailing lists and other channels.

I'm thinking we should include some of the language FT2 brought to the other page, as listed by Tony above. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the other points, can we drop this "under a cloud" language, and use "under controversial circumstances", which is more accurate and less colloquial, and is now the terminology the Committee uses in comparable circumstances. Risker (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the point is being lost that 80% of arbitrators step down before completing their turn and that burn out (from harassment, badgering, persistent criticism) is the major factor. I am reluctant to see this clause hand victory to harassers, by forcing their victim off the committee.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with both Risker and Roger. And the language needs to stay advisory because that is the way that Codes of Conduct and Ethics Codes are written. Other process or policies can be put into place that address Arb recall or forced resignation. But that is not the purpose of a Code of Ethics. As well, there is no consensus for the way that OS and CU access should be removed, so that does not belong in this Code. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a proposal, so the point is to find out whether there's consensus, because we don't know whether there currently is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the section on removing CU and OS access, and participation in Functionaries-l. That would be making new policy with this code that is well beyond what we have agreement to do. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Flo, this is a proposal. If accepted, it will be policy. That's what proposals are. What is your objection to this part of it exactly? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I object to using an advisory code (which is what Code of Ethics and Codes of Conduct are) as a back door way to re-write a major policy about granting and removing special permission access. This code is convoluted. Discussion about removal of access needs to happen on the appropriate pages. This is code was/is written in a way that much too far reaching. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue of resigning in controversial circumstances has to be addressed in some way. It would be appreciated if members of the Committee who disagree with the wording could help to improve it, rather than removing it entirely, because we do need to say something about it.

It currently says: "*An arbitrator who has persistently or seriously violated this code is expected to resign or be removed by the Committee."

Are there objections to this? Could it be made less vague? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• We've had several instances where arbitrators have been harassed in a way that forced them to resign or strongly consider resigning. In these instances, when the harassment resolves then the arbitrator should be welcome to return without re-election. This may or may not be appropriate for public discussion for obvious reasons. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps the most bizarre think about this is this part of the policy has been in force for five years or so and no matter how strongly some people here feel about it I'm not aware of it ever having been an issue.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Which policy has it been in, Roger? Again, we need to distinguish between harassment and criticism. Someone resigning because of a lot of criticism may be entirely appropriate, because Arbs need the confidence of the community. Someone resigning because of genuine harassment (e.g. offwiki outing) is another matter, in which case the sensible approach would be to take a leave of absence, during which that person could decide whether resignation is the best thing, or whether he wants to return. That's why I introduced the distinction. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You are not fully understanding the dynamics of the situation. First, in some instances a public resignation is what is needed to resolve the issue. By re-writing the policy, you remove the option of a harassed arb being able to return if separation from the committee is no longer needed for the arb to feel safe. Second, the first reaction a person has is to resign to make themselves and their family safe. Later, maybe other options are available. If that happens, then a return to their seat should be available to them. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I take it you have the Brad situation in mind. We could add a special outing or serious harassment clause, that where an Arb feels he has to resign for his own safety, or to protect his employment, he may choose to return within a certain period, so long as he is not resigning in otherwise controversial circumstances. I can try to word something, and we could incorporate the other concerns about harassment into that, perhaps. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there is no need to add anything different than the way that we are doing it now. People that leave out of burnout or harassment SHOULD be able to return if the situation changes. And Kat Walsh left to fill a seat on the Foundation board. If she lost the board election a few months later then there was no reason to not have her back on the Committee. There is no reason to stop a season arb from helping out if their situation has changed. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Resignation (arbitrary break #1)

Most removal of status is undertaken by the Arbitration Committee. For transparency, such cases are nowadays heard at RFAR with temporary removal of privileges an option until the case is resolved.

I'd suggest we do exactly the same for a suspected problem arbitrator, for exactly the same reasons. Try one of these two variants (#2 is more thorough):

Version #1:
A member who has persistently or seriously violated this code may have their membership of the Committee and access to its mailing lists temporarily suspended in order for a decision to be made at Requests for arbitration. Resignation during or in anticipation of such a case will be considered "under a cloud".

Version #2:

A member who has persistently or seriously violated this code, may have their Committee membership considered at Requests for arbitration. Access to some or all enhanced tools and mailing lists may be temporarily suspended while the case is being considered.

Accesses and tools temporarily removed will be restored in the absence of sufficient adverse findings. For remediable mistakes, admonishment, reminder and caution are available, and the matter is not expected to recur a second time. Usual norms related to "resignation under a cloud" will apply.

We don't need provisions for "...is expected to resign". That's pointless: - if it's that serious they'll be forced to resign, or a formal hearing will be called. What we want from them is encouragement of prompt disclosure when they become aware of an issue (to Arbcom at least).

Advantages are obvious - standard process, well established norms, openness, fairness, and reasonableness. Note that at AC level, "occasional lapses" may still happen, but any remediable error and misjudgment is expected to be learnt from and never repeated. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those suggestions. I think before deciding on details, we need to decide a principle, which is (a) do we want to run the ArbCom along professional lines, whereby if you say, "I resign," or if the Committee says it for you, you have to stand for re-election. Or (b) do we want a situation where people are standing down or taking unlimited leaves of absence, then returning whenever they choose. The details we can hash out, but I think this principle needs to be established first. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I see an issue here. Existing norms handle this very well. Ask how it would work for an administrator accused of misconduct or in the shadow of possible RFAR. We don't have much trouble getting it right, there. Example situation you're thinking of? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: I'd gladly add that a finding of gross breach of trust, or willful breach of WMF privacy and/or non-public information policies, would result in mandatory removal of all privacy and AC access. I can't see a way those findings wouldn't be that serious, and it gives some extra "teeth" which some users may feel desirable. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Workplace section

As currently worded, this sounds aggressive (perhaps heartfelt!), and it's not clear what would count as harassment or stalking, which are words Wikipedians have been encouraged not to use, because definitions vary. Moving it here until we can get it worded right and defined clearly.

Arbitrators are encouraged to (i) report all instances of hounding and stalking by disaffected litigants and (ii) report any editor persistently attempting to engage in compromising or back-channel communication. Arbitrators are not expected to regard harassment as a normal part of their role.

Can Roger perhaps give some examples of the kinds of things he's referring to (with names changed if needed)? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I first ask what your objection to this rather innocuous paragraph is?  Roger Davies ^talk 16:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what I said above, namely that it's not clear what it means, which is why some examples would be helpful. Can you give some examples, in rough terms without names, of (i)? And when you say "report," do you mean to the Committee, or elsewhere? I suppose I'm a bit unclear how this would be part of a code of conduct, because I think clearly if an Arb was being stalked by a litigant, they would obviously tell someone. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Every arbitrator is harassed to varying degrees. This varies from threats of real life outing and workplace contact, to good old-fashioned hate mail. There are several well known examples already in the public domain. This needs to be here to acknowledge the issue and provide a route forward. "Report" in the context means "to the committee".  Roger Davies ^talk 16:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think we should say what we mean specifically by mentioning outing, hate mail etc. Regarding the second point: "report any editor persistently attempting to engage in compromising or back-channel communication." I agree with this in theory, but I'd worry it would mean an editor might think, "God, I'd better not email a third time in case it's seen as a persistent attempt to engage in ... etc." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't think examples ought to be spelled out on WP:BEANS grounds (if you'll excuse the pun). Second, there's also the general issue of long-term attrition that is just within the bounds of WP:CIVIL (and yes that's a hornet's nest all of it's own). I'm talking here about editors persistently assuming bad faith, making all sorts of appalling allegations, and claiming they have a perfect right to do so because of the special status arbitrators have. The drip drip of constant criticism is highly demoralising and demotivated (as indeed it is intended to be).  Roger Davies ^talk 16:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

We need examples precisely to avoid the hornet's nest that you refer to. Criticism may be demotivating, but sometimes it's valid and sometimes it's not. This page can't taint all criticism with a "harassment" clause. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting it should but I would like to see an end to a climate where personal attacks (either civil or otherwise) are par for the course.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you suggest wording that would clarify you're talking about personal attacks, rather than criticism? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, previously santioned editors are among the most vocal critics of ArbCom. Hanging around the arbitration pages often becomes a major new focus of their on-wiki activity. The persistence of the criticism often becomes a barrage. They are clearly involved, and clearly are pushing a POV. It seems disingenuous to characterise this as constructive criticism and anything other than grinding an ax. The community has a role here in helping them move on. Just my two cents :)  Roger Davies ^talk 18:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your very clear two cents. :) Can you suggest wording that would satisfy what you have in mind, but without implying that all criticism might be interpreted as a personal attack or harassment? Because obviously that won't wash, so we do need to start making some distinctions if we're going to mention this at all. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In my opinion, the current wording (as at the top of this talk section) already addresses the questions raised about it. It is, of course, appropriate that editors be able to communicate constructive (ie, civil) criticisms and concerns to Committee members, but I see nothing in the wording that would hamper that. And Arbs should have the right to expect a non-harassing environment. Look at what the current wording shows: "hounding and stalking by disaffected litigants"; "compromising communication"; and "back-channel communication" that is persistent. I really cannot imagine any way in which hounding, stalking, or compromising would be acceptable. I suppose that there could possibly be some ambiguity about where the line is drawn between persistent constructive advice and inappropriate back-channel communication, and maybe the wording there could be improved, but on balance, I think a big part of the reason this page started was out of desire to move (non-confidential) matters out of back-channels and into the open. And I can easily imagine editors using back channels to harass Arbs. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Recusal again

Can we say more about the circumstances in which members ought to recuse? There has been a feeling in the past, particularly with certain arbitrators, that you daren't ask them to recuse because they take it personally amid accusations of bad faith. Editors shouldn't have to feel that way. I would like to see us take a more professional approach to this, where it's not seen as personal or threatening. On the other hand, we don't want editors trying to force recusal of arbs who might disagree with them.

Could we give some details of what we mean by "significant involvement"? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And equally of course sometimes the requests are made in bad faith or are wiki-lawyering and arbitrators shouldn't feel bad about declining. It cuts both ways. It's worth pointing out that arbitrators deal on more or less a daily basis with the some of most difficult, self-opinionated, pov-pushing, members of the community. In my observation, arbitrators are scrupulus about recusing (sometimes, too scrupulous) and I really don't see the need for dwelling much on this.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Roger, I think one of the difficulties here is that you're thinking in terms of your personal knowledge of the current committee, whereas this policy isn't being written for them alone. It's being written for future committees too, who may be quite different. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The same point equally applies. There is no reason to suppose that the community will appoint dishonest people as arbitrators, especially given the ever-closer scrutiny, and equally there's no reason to suppose that the wiki-lawyers and POV-pushers will become less vociferous.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Leave of absence

Flo (I believe) added that people stepping down for extended periods should make it permanent. I changed that to should resign. Now Roger has removed the whole thing, meaning that someone could take a leave of absence for as long as they please, while retaining their position on the mailing list, which I'm assuming no one wants.

Should we put a time limit on leaves of absence, and what would be reasonable? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Most people resign because of harassment. I'd to see a weather change in that. Forcing people to resign because they've taken a leave of absence to wait for their stalker to move on is handing victory on a plate to the stalker. Again, as I asked elsewhere has this ever been an issue in the past? NYB, famously, came back and it was all to the good. Kirill would be welcomed back with open arms at any time both by the committee and the community. There is a long tradition of resuming roles, and not just in ArbCom, and I'm really not clear at all why you are so insistent about changing this.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of one resignation because of harassment. Others were prompted by decisions that became controversial, or a discovery of an impediment that would have affected the election. You seem to be equating practically all criticism with harassment, Roger.

The reason I'm focusing on resignation is part of an effort to make the Committee run along more professional lines. It has been run for years as a gentleman's club, which is no longer appropriate, because it leads to unfairness and irrational situations. For example, for years we had this huge mailing list of all current and former arbs, including people who hadn't edited in years, yet who were in daily receipt of very private information, simply because they had once belonged. Anyone writing to the Arbitration Committee had to agree to address all these very distant people. If you complained about it, you were accused of assuming bad faith.

There are current practices that are quite similar to that, in the sense that they would never exist in the real world, and the resignation issue is one of them. If you leave your position in the real world, that's it, and the more applicants there are for that position, or the more sensitive it is, the more that's the case. There's no reason the ArbCom should be any different. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I am most certainly not equating all criticism with harassment but I see no reason why it should be confined to the arbitration pages and governed by the normal rules of courteous discussion (perhaps with a sensitivity to BLP issues where real names are used). And I certainly don't buy the idea that a few malcontents represents the will of the community and I certainly don't believe they should have carte blanche to demoralise and undermine serving arbitrators.

Incidentally, anyone who thinks that ArbCom is run like a gentleman's club has clearly been in neither :)

The huge list is ancient history. One of the first things the 2009 ArbCom did was to move ex-arbs etc to a separate functionaries list.

The fact is that there aren't a huge number of suitable people waiting to step into a vacated seat, not those that would be acceptable to the community leastwise. There's also the learning curve to consider (at least six months) and the fact that 80% of the replacements will resign.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but the point about sorting out resignation remains. Do we want people to be able to take an unlimited leave of absence, or do we want to limit it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Unlimited. Per the arbs that have answered this multiple times. ++Lar: t/c 00:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What's the advantage, as you see it, of allowing that? Would it not make more sense to limit it to, say, six months? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The advantage is that we let experienced trusted people return to the position. There is no reason for a set time limit that keeps them from coming back. This has been explained multiple times on this page. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The difficulty is that it leaves a hole, and you're saying Arbs are overloaded as it is. If people elect 10 people, we should know that 10 people will be doing the job, generally speaking, and that if someone can't do it for a very long time, that another can be elected in his place. It's an elected position, not a sinecure.

How often has it happened that people have left for a very long time -- say, more than six months -- and returned? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) This has got nothing whatsoever with a Code of Conduct, by the way, and everything to do with standard operating procedures. This really needs merging into the policy draft and sorting out there.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The point of the CofC is to give new Arbs a minimalist idea of what the community expects from them. My own view is that we should simply deal, in broad terms, with Arbs being expected to resign for gross violations of the Code. But Flo changed that to temporary "stepping down," which I changed to "leave of absence." It might be better to return to the minimalist version. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Fact is most of this is broadly covered in the policy draft. This document goes much further than just outlining what is expected of new arbs: it is becoming increasingly prescriptive and micro-managerial.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My wording was advisory language about stepping down gracefully rather than rigidly worded clauses that can not possibly anticipate every situation. This straying far from a Code of Ethics/Conduct. The more I think about it, it looks like the CoC should be merged into the ArbCom policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In regards to an arbitrator being replaced mid-term (raised by SlimVirgin 01:34, Oct 6), which is obviously beyond the scope of a code of conduct document, I think that adding people mid-term would do more to drag down the committee than the loss of a committee member. A mid-term arb election or appointment would be disruptive to both community and committee, and integration into the committee would also be difficult. Hopefully we never have a situation where a significant number of arbitrators step down. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Resignation again

This is an important section and we need wide input on it, I think, if there is disagreement. In the meantime, I've removed the "stepping down" language as too vague. The page currently reads:

==Leave of absence and resignation==

• Arbitrators unable to perform their duties, for example because of a heavy workload or other commitments, should take a leave of absence.
• Where a leave of absence becomes extended, the arbitrator is expected to resign. Resignation will include being removed from all Arbitration Committee mailing lists and channels. Arbitrators who have resigned and who wish to regain a position on the Committee must go through the normal channels by standing for election.

===Resigning under a cloud===

• Where an arbitrator resigns under a cloud, resigns preemptively to avoid being forced to resign under a cloud, or has his membership removed by the Committee, he will lose his checkuser and oversight access, as well as access to the Arbitration and functionary mailing lists and other channels.

I'm thinking we should include some of the language FT2 brought to the other page, as listed by Tony above. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the other points, can we drop this "under a cloud" language, and use "under controversial circumstances", which is more accurate and less colloquial, and is now the terminology the Committee uses in comparable circumstances. Risker (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the point is being lost that 80% of arbitrators step down before completing their turn and that burn out (from harassment, badgering, persistent criticism) is the major factor. I am reluctant to see this clause hand victory to harassers, by forcing their victim off the committee.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with both Risker and Roger. And the language needs to stay advisory because that is the way that Codes of Conduct and Ethics Codes are written. Other process or policies can be put into place that address Arb recall or forced resignation. But that is not the purpose of a Code of Ethics. As well, there is no consensus for the way that OS and CU access should be removed, so that does not belong in this Code. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a proposal, so the point is to find out whether there's consensus, because we don't know whether there currently is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the section on removing CU and OS access, and participation in Functionaries-l. That would be making new policy with this code that is well beyond what we have agreement to do. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Flo, this is a proposal. If accepted, it will be policy. That's what proposals are. What is your objection to this part of it exactly? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I object to using an advisory code (which is what Code of Ethics and Codes of Conduct are) as a back door way to re-write a major policy about granting and removing special permission access. This code is convoluted. Discussion about removal of access needs to happen on the appropriate pages. This is code was/is written in a way that much too far reaching. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue of resigning in controversial circumstances has to be addressed in some way. It would be appreciated if members of the Committee who disagree with the wording could help to improve it, rather than removing it entirely, because we do need to say something about it.

It currently says: "*An arbitrator who has persistently or seriously violated this code is expected to resign or be removed by the Committee."

Are there objections to this? Could it be made less vague? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• We've had several instances where arbitrators have been harassed in a way that forced them to resign or strongly consider resigning. In these instances, when the harassment resolves then the arbitrator should be welcome to return without re-election. This may or may not be appropriate for public discussion for obvious reasons. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps the most bizarre think about this is this part of the policy has been in force for five years or so and no matter how strongly some people here feel about it I'm not aware of it ever having been an issue.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Which policy has it been in, Roger? Again, we need to distinguish between harassment and criticism. Someone resigning because of a lot of criticism may be entirely appropriate, because Arbs need the confidence of the community. Someone resigning because of genuine harassment (e.g. offwiki outing) is another matter, in which case the sensible approach would be to take a leave of absence, during which that person could decide whether resignation is the best thing, or whether he wants to return. That's why I introduced the distinction. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You are not fully understanding the dynamics of the situation. First, in some instances a public resignation is what is needed to resolve the issue. By re-writing the policy, you remove the option of a harassed arb being able to return if separation from the committee is no longer needed for the arb to feel safe. Second, the first reaction a person has is to resign to make themselves and their family safe. Later, maybe other options are available. If that happens, then a return to their seat should be available to them. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I take it you have the Brad situation in mind. We could add a special outing or serious harassment clause, that where an Arb feels he has to resign for his own safety, or to protect his employment, he may choose to return within a certain period, so long as he is not resigning in otherwise controversial circumstances. I can try to word something, and we could incorporate the other concerns about harassment into that, perhaps. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there is no need to add anything different than the way that we are doing it now. People that leave out of burnout or harassment SHOULD be able to return if the situation changes. And Kat Walsh left to fill a seat on the Foundation board. If she lost the board election a few months later then there was no reason to not have her back on the Committee. There is no reason to stop a season arb from helping out if their situation has changed. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Resignation (arbitrary break)

Most removal of status is undertaken by the Arbitration Committee. For transparency, such cases are nowadays heard at RFAR with temporary removal of privileges an option until the case is resolved.

I'd suggest we do exactly the same for a suspected problem arbitrator, for exactly the same reasons. Try one of these two variants (#2 is more thorough):

Version #1:
A member who has persistently or seriously violated this code may have their membership of the Committee and access to its mailing lists temporarily suspended in order for a decision to be made at Requests for arbitration. Resignation during or in anticipation of such a case will be considered "under a cloud".

Version #2:

A member who has persistently or seriously violated this code, may have their Committee membership considered at Requests for arbitration. Access to some or all enhanced tools and mailing lists may be temporarily suspended while the case is being considered.

Accesses and tools temporarily removed will be restored in the absence of sufficient adverse findings. For remediable mistakes, admonishment, reminder and caution are available, and the matter is not expected to recur a second time. Usual norms related to "resignation under a cloud" will apply.

We don't need provisions for "...is expected to resign". That's pointless: - if it's that serious they'll be forced to resign, or a formal hearing will be called. What we want from them is encouragement of prompt disclosure when they become aware of an issue (to Arbcom at least).

Advantages are obvious - standard process, well established norms, openness, fairness, and reasonableness. Note that at AC level, "occasional lapses" may still happen, but any remediable error and misjudgment is expected to be learnt from and never repeated. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those suggestions. I think before deciding on details, we need to decide a principle, which is (a) do we want to run the ArbCom along professional lines, whereby if you say, "I resign," or if the Committee says it for you, you have to stand for re-election. Or (b) do we want a situation where people are standing down or taking unlimited leaves of absence, then returning whenever they choose. The details we can hash out, but I think this principle needs to be established first. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I see an issue here. Existing norms handle this very well. Ask how it would work for an administrator accused of misconduct or in the shadow of possible RFAR. We don't have much trouble getting it right, there. Example situation you're thinking of? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No specific example. Just a desire to make the whole thing more professional, and I've noticed several people express concern about Arbs resigning, or appearing to have resigned, and returning. So I think it's worth sorting out. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The suggestions above aren't about voluntary resignation or leave of absence. They're about the serious cases, when an allegation of misconduct is raised that might be sufficient to force departure. Obviously if forced to resign in that way we aren't talking about "coming back a few months later".

An arb who is alleged to have done something sufficiently wrong to perhaps have to step down, is in the same shoes as a socking admin. If there's enough of a case to be a shadow, or a case, or forced departure, or "resigning under a cloud", then there's enough to test it at RFAR like any other gross misconduct allegation (desysopping etc), see if the findings support the case, and set appropriate remedies of whatever kind are needed, whether or not the user chooses to reply and respond. The above wordings will handle all such cases. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: I'd gladly add that a finding of gross breach of trust, or willful breach of WMF privacy and/or non-public information policies, would result in mandatory removal of all privacy and AC access. I can't see a way those findings wouldn't be that serious, and it gives some extra "teeth" which some users may feel desirable. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this, FT, it's very helpful. I'll take a closer look later or tomorrow. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) Incidentally, FT2, there's a discussion here about merging this into the policy draft. It makes no sense maintaining two discussions and two proposed policy drafts over essentially the same matters.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I suspect some of us are feeling a bit whipsawed trying to keep up with two parallel discussions. ++Lar: t/c 03:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to keep it as a separate proposal for now, as I explained elsewhere, because it will be faster to ratify it as a stand-alone policy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Workplace section (2)

Roger, you restored this "per talk," but there was no movement on the wording. You said above that arbitrators are encouraged to report to the committee, is that right? It seems odd that one of them would be being hounded and stalked, and wouldn't mention it to the others. We have only had one example of an Arb being harassed (outed) that I know of, and it was very public, which was indeed the point of it, so there was no one to report it to.

Also, it's not clear what the back-channel communication issue means. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Largely reiterating what I said above, I agree with Roger that it serves a good purpose to have restored this section, but I also think that SlimVirgin is correct that the wording of "back-channel communication" should be made more clear. We don't want to jeopardize an editor who in good faith is trying to communicate confidentially, but there are obvious ways in which communications that are not transparent to the community can become abusive. How can we word that more precisely? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Timeliness

I don't really want to say too much about this, but there have been severe issues with lack of timeliness ruining any effective remedy. I currently have a case open where an arbitrator, on an active appeal, made a provably false statement about me, which he refused to retract.

I asked repeatedly for it to be retracted. I asked for arbcom to look into it and confirm it was false (part of the evidence was oversighted, though nothing I said). Other people, using the limited evidence available, agreed that it was false. Furthermore, I discovered the arbitrator had made the false statement before.

The Arbcom refused to deal with it, and did not archive the posts where people agreed there was no evidence for the accusation to the case page, leaving only the arbitrator's previous false accusation.

I complained, and was promised it would be dealt with. I was told yesterday there was a chance it might happen in the next two months. It's been a couple months already.

This. Is. Ridiculous. Had it been dealt with in a timely manner, five minutes would have sufficed to give effective remedy. Now, there is no effective remedy, short of a public apology, which is far in excess of what a single arbitrator's misstatement deserved. However, that misstatement accuses me of intentional revenge outing.

I don't want to say anymore without talking to Arbcom first, but it's clear that something must be done to force them to behave in an ethical manner as regards false accusations and timely remedy. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 08:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of points here.

• A general statement about best efforts to complete things expediently is an excellent idea.
• Turning to the specific example you raise, I remember this well and my discussions with you at the time. In my emails of 26 July (sent by return to yours) I asked you to spell out exactly what you wanted us to do to help bring complete closure for you on this as we can't help you unless we know what exactly you want. I haven't yet had a reply. I'll send you a copy of the emails again shortly and if you can reply to them in full, we will look at it very quickly indeed, I promise you.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You also asked me to take a break first, and I was of the impression that I had responded, though it may not have reached you, as Ihad multiple requests of that type, and presumed you were sharing. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 23:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I see the timeliness issue is already covered in the "Workload" section.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You're dealing with human beings here. You can't legislate against exhaustion, tiredness, stress, or workload. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)