User talk:~riley/sandbox

The Adjudication Commission is a group of trusted and experienced editors elected to provide scrutiny and oversight for misuse and/or abuse of administrative permissions where other methods of resolution have failed. All other options should be exhausted prior to a case being brought to the adjudication stage.

The commission is the last step in the dispute resolution process - it is a last resort to be turned to when all else has failed. Other steps, including discussions between the involved parties and where appropriate, community discussion, should be attempted first. The adjudication commission exists only to deal with misuse of administrative permissions including administrators, oversighters, checkusers, and bureaucrats. The commission does not accept cases regarding content disputes or user disputes.

The adjudication commission has the following duties and responsibilities:

• To investigate complaints of abuse of administrative permissions (including checkusers and oversighters)
• To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal or similar reasons;
• To report infringements of the privacy policy as well as the global checkuser and oversight policies to the Ombudsman commission.

Cases may be brought forward to the adjudication commission by any registered Wikimedia Commons user at Commons:Adjudication Commission/Requests. Cases will be submitted and reviewed by the commission publically unless extraordinary circumstances where significant privacy, harassment or legal issues are involved require the case to be handled privately.

The commission may accept, refer, or decline any matter at its sole description. Cases believed to be most appropriate for the Ombudsman commission will be referred, without delay or interference, but may also be accepted or declined if the additional action is deemed appropriate.

All adjudicators will participate in all cases barring any personal leaves or recusals. Decisions are reached by a majority vote of active, non-recused adjudicators. If an Arbitrator believes they have a conflict of interest in a case, they will immediately recuse themselves. Users who believe adjudicators have a conflict of interest should notify the adjudicator. If the adjudicator disagrees there is a conflict of interest, the user may contact the Adjudicator Commission to make a decision to recuse the involved adjudicator. Recusal is only appropriate in situations where impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Statements may be added to case pages by any interested registered user.

Involved parties are expected to respond to statements about themselves or inquiries directed to themselves. Failure to respond may result in decisions being made without their participation.

All editors are required to act reasonably and civilly on adjudication case pages. Editors unable to act with decorum may be excused from participating.

Jurisdiction for the adjudication commission includes Wikimedia Commons and it's administrative and privileged users including administrators, oversighters, checkusers and bureaucrats. The Commission does not have jurisdiction over other Wikimedia projects or official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff.

Any editor may ask the commission to reconsider or amend a ruling. The commission has the discretion to accept or decline any appeal. While editors have the right to request an appeal, editors are encouraged to only appeal a ruling if new information or evidence is brought forward that may considerably impact the previous ruling.

Adjudicators are nominated and selected through annual community elections. Elections involve a 7-day nomination period followed by a 14-day voting period.

Candidates must meet account and activity requirements including being a registered user for a minimum of one year with 500 edits within the last six months. Checkusers and oversighters are eligible candidates and not prohibited from standing for election.

Eligible voters must be users registered on Wikimedia Commons for a minimum of one month, have made a total of 500 edits, and have made 25 edits in the one year prior to the voting period.

There are eight seats on the adjudication commission; a minimum of six seats must be maintained throughout the year to ensure the commission can manage cases while members are recused or on leave.

Commission members may be nominated for a consecutive term. In the event no adjudicators are re-elected to serve a consecutive term, an advisory team of two former adjudicators from the previous term may be chosen by the new commission to serve in a non-voting role to guide the new commission.

Outside of hearing cases, the adjudication commission has no special authority, abilities or userrights in the community.

The adjudication commission may require additional permissions to investigate complaints involving the use of checkuser or oversight. Additional permissions may be needed to:

• Determine if a case should be accepted, deferred, or declined
  • Checkuser and/or oversighter permissions granted for a period of 14 days.
• Investigate an accepted case
  • Checkuser and/or oversighter permissions granted until case is closed.

If additional permissions are required, an adjudicator must notify the community on behalf of the commission on the Commons:Adjudication Commission/Noticeboard and file a request at Steward requests/Permissions (SRP). A later request must be filed at SRP to request these permissions be removed.

The adjudication-commission (adjudication-commissionwikimedia.org) mailing list is the primary form of internal communication for the commision. The mailing list can be used by any user as a means of contacting the commission privately.

All current arbitrators have access to this mailing list.