Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This proposal has failed to attain consensus within the Wikipedia community. A failed proposal is one for which a consensus to accept is not present after a reasonable amount of time, and seems unlikely to form, regardless of continuing discussion.

The suggestions below are to be edited and merged to create one policy from the input of any Wikipedian wishing to contribute. The intent is to create a binding and enforceable policy acceptable to all.

Contents 1 Proposal 1 1.1 General conduct 1.2 Recusal 1.3 Process 1.4 Adequate explanation of decisions 1.4.1 Decision guidelines 1.4.1.1 No Ex Post Facto rules 1.4.1.2 No Lese majesty findings 1.4.1.3 No Damnatio memoriae sanctions 1.5 Recourses 2 Proposal 2: Everything is fair game 3 Proposal 3: Resolution, not punishment 4 Proposal 4: Inquisitorial Review

[edit] Proposal 1

[edit] General conduct

All Wikipedia participants including Arbcom Members are subject to the rules of conduct as prescribed in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Behavior guidelines and must abide by them during the course of Arbitration cases. Arbcom members shall abide by Wikipedia's "No Personal Attacks" rule during the hearing of a case. Those elected by the will of the Wikipedia community to serve on the Arbitration Committee are bound by the principles of impartiality and fairness in their decisions. Arbitrators shall conduct themselves with a manner and dignity commensurate with the position of trust they occupy in Wikipedia and shall not give cause to be criticized for unfairness or impartiality.

Arbitration Committee members should refrain from commenting in public fora such as Talk pages or mailing lists on live matters pertaining to a formal dispute resolution processes.

[edit] Recusal

Arbitrators should recuse themselves from any case which they feel they cannot fairly participate in due either to strong negative or positive feelings toward the parties or subject matter. This includes a dispute they have been personally involved in. Recusal may be appropriate in some cases where there is no actual prejudice but there is a strong appearance of possible prejudice.

What circumstances are grounds for recusal? Arbitrators are obliged to recuse themselves when:

• They have been named a party to the request for arbitration itself.
• They have been a participant in another significant current or recent dispute with the same user(s) or about the same topic. A significant dispute is defined as any that involves or involved a lengthy RfC, Mediation, or prior Arbitration case in which they were a party. In the case of an RfC, significant participation includes the strong espousal of an opinion regarding the dispute (to be considered on a case by case basis) and/or the endorsement of an editor who is a party to the current Arbcom case.
• They have a strong personal relationship in real life to one or more users in the dispute. This includes all immediate family, and close personal or professional relationships.
• They present evidence to the case themselves, solicit evidence or other contributions from any individual not named as a party to the case, or coach any individual, whether a party to the case or not, on the content (as distinct from the preferred format, length etc) of their evidence or other contributions. Any activity relating to an open or newly submitted ArbCom case which violates the spirit or letter of this guideline constitutes a conflict of interest.
• They engage in personal attacks against a party to the case during the course of its consideration (violations of WP:NPA).
• Any other significant conflict of interest in the hearing or outcome of the case that has the effect of prejudicing the Arbcom member's votes in favor of or against a party to the case.

What circumstances are NOT grounds for recusal? Among the things which are explicitly not grounds for a recusal are:

• Unreciprocated personal attacks or other negative statements on the part of a party to the case (and not the ArbCom member).
• Simple participation in an RfC involving one or more of the parties by an ArbCom member; however, if the member expresses particularly strong opinions, this might be problematic and should be considered on a case by case basis as required by "What are grounds for recusal." Endorsements of a party to the dispute in a related Conduct RfC always require recusal.
• Blocking or otherwise enforcing policy against one of the parties in the normal line of administrative duties (Note: clear abuse of administrator powers such as blocking or imposing page protection in violation of Wikipedia policies for their use is not considered to be the normal line of duty, and shall be susceptible to recusal.)
• Merely warning one or more parties that particular behaviour is unacceptable and/or drawing the attention of one or more parties to relevant policies, when regarding a dispute which the ArbCom member is not otherwise a part of.
• Any past dispute which was both confined to Talk pages, and initiated by a party to the dispute who is not an ArbCom member, with the exception of cases in which the ArbCom member can be construed as expressing an intention to reach a particular finding of fact, remedy or other result if the other party should find him/herself before the ArbCom. (For example: if someone who later becomes a party to an ArbCom case picks a fight with an ArbCom member on the latter's Talk page, this does not constitute grounds for recusal even if the ArbCom member takes the bait. However, if the ArbCom member says something like "One of these days you'll find yourself blocked until fifteen minutes before the heat death of the universe, and I hope I'm there to see it", this could be construed as prejudging the case and the member should recuse him or herself.)
• Parties who previously appeared before the Arbitration Committee should not expect that negative findings made in prior cases by an Arbitrator constitute grounds for recusal nor that expressions of negative feelings or personal attacks toward an Arbitrator by a party to a prior arbitration constitute grounds for recusal.

Use common sense Above all Arbcom members should use common sense and decide whether their involvement affects the ability of all parties to receive a fair and unbiased hearing. When there is doubt or the strong appearance of prejudice in a case, Arbcom members should err on the side of recusal.

In the event a party or other user feels an arbitrator should recuse themselves they should make a motion on the /Workshop page of the arbitration setting forth the grounds requiring recusal and appropriate diffs where applicable. The motion may be considered the Arbitration Committee and if a majority of the Committee agrees that the Arbitrator should recuse themselves they shall do so. The ruling on such a motion may be appealed to User:Jimmy Wales.

[edit] Process

The following guidelines will govern Arbitration Committee member conduct with regard to the process by which a case is heard and decided:

• An Arbitration Committee member shall not initiate communication, either direct or indirect, with any party to a hearing before the Committee. All communications with parties to a case should be posted on an appropriate talk or workshop page.
• Arbitrators are to act upon all reasonable motions and requests by the parties not deemed frivolous in good order.
• Arbitrators shall use a presumption of innocence regarding all participants of a case, irrespective of the notability of any named participant.
• Arbitration Committee members shall consider without prejudice the evidence presented by the disputant parties and, if necessary, other users.
• Arbitrators are to apply findings based upon evidence uniformly upon all parties to a dispute. Comparable offenses by multiple parties must be evaluated uniformly (For example: two users have engaged in comparable personal attacks of a similar degree should be penalized with comparable sanctions).
• Administrators, Bureaucrats, and other Arbcom members are not to be afforded any special privileges in case findings on account of their status. In the event that one of the aforementioned Wikipedia officials engages in a similar violation to a regular editor, both shall be judged on equal footing without regard to their respective titles or status.
• Arbitrators are not to use proposed findings or remedies as retribution against a participant for legitimate, and possibly embarassing questions, regarding an Arbitrators conduct, either inside an arbitration hearing or outside a hearing.

[edit] Adequate explanation of decisions

You can't tie up the process or single out one Arbitrator with an onerous rule. Exemplary conduct from a proper Code of Conduct will eliminate many reasons for questioning decisions.

Members of the Arbitration Committee are expected to make a good faith effort to explain the basis for their decisions. This may include recitation of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines the decision is based on and findings of fact regarding current Wikipedia policy. Findings of fact regarding behavior of the parties should be supported by direct links to edits made by the parties. The remedies included in the decision reached by the Arbitration Committee should address mitigation of the policy violations exposed by the findings of fact. In addition to support included in the decision itself, Arbitration Committee members should make a reasonable attempt to respond to requests by the parties and other users who seek explanations of their decisions.

Arbcom members must present their findings in a clear and transparent manner. All findings about user conduct in violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines must include four elements: (1) specific identification of the user it applies to, (2) specific identification of the policy or guideline that was violated, (3) a link to the specific diff alleged to have violated the policy or guideline, and (4) if there is a credible dispute as to whether 1-3 accurately characterize the user's actions, a clear indication that the ArbCom has considered the objection, accompanied by an explanation of their reasoning in finding for one side of the dispute rather than the other (or the reasoning behind whatever compromise they choose between the two, if applicable). It is not acceptable to link to a specific user's evidence file against another user to fulfill the third requirement. The specific diff or set of diffs allegedly in violation of a policy or guideline must be presented.

[edit] Decision guidelines

[edit] No Ex Post Facto rules

Arbcom members should base their decisions on Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and Arbcom case precedents as they existed at the time of the alleged offense. While an Arbitration case's findings may contribute to the adoption of a new rule or guideline for future behavior, the Arbcom is prohibited from creating or imposing ex post facto rules as a means of penalizing accused parties.

[edit] No Lese majesty findings

The Arbcom may not sanction a user for Lese majesty offenses against their own authority. The Arbcom may not impose sanctions upon editors for simply expressing disagreement with an Arbcom finding or criticizing the manner in which the Arbcom reached that finding so long as conducted civilly and in the appropriate forums of the case itself or relevant user and talk page discussions on policy.

[edit] No Damnatio memoriae sanctions

The Arbcom may not order the removal of talk page posts or userpage content as a penalty for an editor, including blocked editors, except where such content explicitly violates a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Examples in which an editor's contributions may be ordered removed include personal attacks, libel, profanity, and vandalism.

[edit] Recourses

ArbCom members abiding by a Code of Conduct and due process will eliminate a great many second-guessers. Recourses are simple: either Jimmy Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation. A Code of Conduct does not normally provide recourses; that is for the official policy rules governing the creation of the body that should be put in place.

[edit] Proposal 2: Everything is fair game

The Arbitration Committee may impose any sanction or remedy upon any party to an arbitration on the basis of any of that user's edits to any page on Wikipedia, including talk and user pages, regardless of whether or not stated policy had anticipated such sanction-worthy behavior and regardless of whether or not such sanction-worthy behavior was raised in the request for arbitration.

[edit] Proposal 3: Resolution, not punishment

The Arbitration Committee provides binding resolution of disputes. Justice, retribution, or reform of wrongdoers are beyond its scope. The goal of arbitration is not to punish wrongdoers; it is to settle disputes where ordinary means (such as discussion and requesting outside comment) have failed. Decisions such as the banning of an editor are not punishments or penalties; they are ways to put an end to a dispute that's damaging the encyclopedia.

Binding resolution, not justice: It is not the Committee's goal to "make whole" a person who has been wronged in a dispute. Nor is it the goal to give a person what s/he "deserves" for his/her actions, or to set "community service" penalties to recoup the damages done to "society".

Binding resolution, not retribution: It is not the Committee's goal to provide a means of getting revenge for a perceived slight. Nor is it the goal to set penalties pour encourager les autres -- to "make an example of" anyone.

Binding resolution, not reform: It is not the Committee's goal to induce a "change of heart" in anyone. Nor is it the goal to set penalties targeted at a person's beliefs or attitudes. The purpose of arbitration decisions is only to end disputes, not to make bad people into good people.

I think we have two goals, encourage change but also provide for removal of the problem if that is what is necessary in the absence of change Fred Bauder 22:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Both of those are basically ways of providing an end to a dispute. If the disputing parties are amenable to a resolution, great; otherwise, whatever's needed to stop harm to the project follows. That makes sense. It's problematic though when people look to arbitration to establish "who's the bad guy here" and then to give that person "what they deserve". --FOo 06:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal 4: Inquisitorial Review

1. The initial proposal above seems based upon the traditional view of a panel of judges to whom evidence is presented by professional lawyers on behalf of their clients. This is not wikipedia. Wikipiedia expects that civility, consensus and a spirit of assistance will rule proceedings of the arbitration committee. Wiki does not have a professional police force tasked with impartially investigating complaints. It is not appropriate that the judges divorce themselves from the process of gathering evidence, but should take an active part in requesting further evidence, gathering evidence, and initiating dialog with any parties as they see fit. Any evidence uncovered should be presented for comment by all. All communication with parties to a case should be entered into openly on wiki for anyone to see, with the sole exception of communications between the arbitrators which may remain private as they see fit.
2. Any party or arbitrator is entitled to request that a case be reviewed, by a publicly tabled reasoned request for the committee to consider a matter again. Arbitrators are no more obliged to accept such a request than they are to initially accept any case. An arbitrator asking that a case be reopened is not obliged to recuse from the case by reason of having asked for review.
3. The committee will not be bound by the precedent of previous judgements. While judgements would not reverse from case to case, the committe has the right to reverse a judgement based upon similar facts to a previous case where circumstances now suggest that a different result or policy would be more beneficial to wiki. Sandpiper 03:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)