Wikipedia:Arbitration guide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The Arbitration process is governed by the Arbitration policy.
This page outlines the arbitration process. If you are considering an arbitration case, or are involved in one, please read this page carefully. Arbitration is an exceptional step in a dispute, and has a number of structured norms which help direct its approach but are not the norm for other forms of dispute resolution. Users unfamiliar with Arbitration may experience worry about 'their case' and whether it is 'going anywhere' or the approach taken, if they do not understand how Arbitration works.
Contents |
[edit] About Wikipedia Arbitration
Arbitration is the final resort for serious disputes that the community cannot resolve. A panel of highly experienced users will listen to the case, and reach a decision (also sometimes called "findings" or a "ruling"). Wikipedia's arbitration process is not a court case so there are important features to be aware of, that are a common area of confusion:
- Arbitration is intended to serve the project
That means, the primary question driving it is "how do we best direct this log-jam to move forward, so we can get on with the project". Often that means Arbitrators focus on the risk and benefits for future, and the past is used more as evidence of that. So Arbitration is more likely to ask "do we feel they are unlikely to learn or change? If they could, what restrictions or clarifications may encourage that, or prevent the current problems?", not grudges and old issues that just drag up the past to no net benefit, which were "old" long ago.
- Arbitration aims to "crunch down" on the dispute going forward
In other words, it may come back, and that's fine, but Abitrators will want to break the back of it and get it to the point it probably lets us move forward, and if it recurs it's easy to address. If it needs refinement later, or a little more action, that's fine.
The first time a dispute comes to Arbitration, it may have gone on months, or a year, or more. Many users may be angry and buzzing, there will often be smokescreens and excuses, bad faith allegations, and so on. The aim of the Committee will include identifying the real issues, and figuring out what would let it move forward.
- Arbitration is not a court case
Like all Wikipedia process, Arbitration aims for an appropriate result. A wide range of actions and general conduct (not just the direct issue) may be taken into account; arbitration is not a legal process with fixed approaches to problems. For example:
- A person's general manner to others in Arbitration discussion, is probably evidence of their likely manner to others going forward.
- Old incidents may shed light on an ongoing problem, but are not going to be anything more; Arbitrators are extremely unlikely to take action directly for "stale" (old) matters
- An insightful impression by reasonable people, is valuable, even if it is just an "impression".
- Arbitration will sometimes give results that are not what some expected
For example, a user may be given a light sanction for serious behavior, or a topic ban, if this is all that is needed to control the problem. Or indeed, a user may be desysopped for poor judgement if it's felt they just don't understand appropriate use of administrative tools.
History shows that it is remarkably difficult for a "problem user" to successfully resume "acting up" after being sanctioned at arbitration. There is little scope, and too much awareness. Their attempts ((if any) typically don't last long and are quickly dealt with when noticed. Arbitrators take this effect into account in deciding cases, since they are aware of the likely impact of a given remedy on a given set of behaviors.
This by and large works well. Many cases never recur, those that do are very often far easier to handle by the community. The minority that do return to Arbitration often do so because of a different dispute in the same area, different activity by a problematic user, or in a very few cases, the original dispute needs stronger measures than might have been the case.
[edit] Examples
- Someone who harangues others or assumes bad faith is just giving Arbitrators good evidence how they interact generally; the response of others (however communicated) can indicate the impact such a person is having on the community.
- A serious disruption in one limited area may be easily controlled by a topic ban; where a less serious but more pervasive behavior may not be able to be controlled except by general sanctions or a site ban.
[edit] Before requesting arbitration
[edit] Types of request
Requests to the Arbitration Committee are generally categorized as follows:
-
New requests A matter that is felt to require the opening of a full new arbitration case. This is typically for: - A new matter, or
- A previous case where a major change of focus is sought that requires a full new hearing.
Existing matters Clarifications A request for further guidance or clarification on a past ruling. Typically when a ruling may be misinterpreted, or where it is important to have clarity of its intentions and limitations. Appeals Appeals against sanctions and bans, requests for parole and probations to be lifted or eased, and so on. Amendments and extensions Events since the case show that the remedies and enforcement measures need modification, to have their intended (or appropriate) effect. Typically an issue has arisen since the case which does not require the case to be re-opened and re-heard, but there is a concern that the decisions based on the evidence are not completely adequate to the ensuing situation.
[edit] Prior steps
The Committee will generally review these types of cases without any previous formal dispute resolution measures being followed:
-
- Reviews of emergency actions to remove administrator privileges
- Unusually divisive disputes among administrators
- Matters directly referred to the Arbitration Committee by Jimbo Wales
Otherwise, it is expected that other avenues will be attempted first:
-
- For requests regarding the conduct of another editor, it is expected that the requests for comment (RFC) process will be followed. The Committee considers community input from the RFC process both in determining whether to accept a case and also in formulating its decisions.
- For requests involving disagreements between editors on a particular article or topic area, it is expected that mediation will be attempted.
[edit] Alternatives
In general, matters should not be referred to arbitration when a lesser step will be sufficient. Alternatives include:
- An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Get to situations early and try to avoid mediation or arbitration entirely.
- The Mediation cabal can mediate in cases where full blown mediation would be overkill, and it can mediate in odd or interesting situations too.
- Ask for other editors to help out, get a third opinion or seek comments from the community.
- If you want to be sure you're doing the right thing yourself, editor assistance can help you with rules, diplomacy, and walk you through dispute resolution, so you won't have to and can just concentrate on editing the article.
- In some cases, administrative intervention is appropriate and can be obtained via the administrators' incident noticeboard.
[edit] In private or public
Typically, cases involving ban appeals are heard in private, by email, since the nature of a ban is to remove the banned user from the community. In some cases a user may be unblocked for the purposes of appeal, on the understanding they will strictly edit only the few pages needed for the purpose and not edit for any other reason.
A small minority of other cases may also be heard in private. This is less common, and most commonly occurs when there are exceptional privacy issues.
Otherwise, users may refer evidence to the Committee by email in any case. However unless there is good reason, it is preferable that, in most cases, evidence is presented on-wiki. To email the Committee, see here.
If there is doubt about posting any evidence or privacy issue, or there are concerns over a public discussion, please ask an arbitrator for advice by email.
[edit] Requesting and responding to a case
[edit] Your statement
While it is not necessary to lay out the entire case, the Committee will expect you to briefly outline the nature of the dispute and the steps already taken to resolve it.
Make your statement short and factual. Use diffs to point to specific instances to illustrate the point. Remember you are presenting at this point, a summary of the evidence available, and enough information to show why arbitration is needed.
[edit] Responding to others' statements
At times, others will make points that you feel need a response. Remember that arbitration cases are not debate pages; they are places to present summary (at first) and then detailed evidence (if accepted).
You should respond to others' points by adding brief notes in your own statement: "In response to the statement by User X, <your comment here>".
[edit] How requests are processed and the decision to accept
After a request is made, the active Arbitrators vote on whether to accept or decline the case; 0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Sometimes "decline" is used instead of "reject". "Recuse" means that an Arbitrator has excused himself or herself from a case because of a possible, or perceived, conflict of interest. "Other" is for votes or suggestions that do not fit into one of the previous three categories.; this includes comments that are not formal accept/reject votes, although they may imply the arbitrator intends to lean for a particular outcome.
Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes. Cases that have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days will be removed from this page. When a case is opened, a notice including a link to newly created evidence and workshop pages will be posted to each participant's talk page, and linking to further information.
As a procedural note, arbitrators may often leave a comment, and then afterwards cast their vote, leaving that comment standing. If so, that comment remains in the arbitrator voting and comment section, but is no longer counted in the comments tally (hence, a comment superseded by an accept would switch from x/x/x/3 to 1/x/x/2, presuming the arbitrator voted support, and there were two other arbitrator comments). The Clerks will usually handle tally updating, especially if it is a particularly difficult set of votes.
[edit] When a case is accepted
Users at this point will be able to post their main evidence, which may also be updated as needed at any time, either to improve it, to add new evidence, or to provide their own notes related to others' comments. They may also optionally take part in the workshop, a structured consideration of the case for anyone in the community (including parties and arbitrators). Finally, if they have questions on the case, they may address these on the relevant talk pages.
[edit] Temporary injunctions
In some cases, the Arbitrators may feel that it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia (to prevent further disruption and maintain decorum) to temporarily enjoin the participants from continuing the disputed conduct until the case is concluded. Temporary injunctions do not necessarily foretell the outcome of the case.
Temporary injunctions pass upon receiving 4 net votes; that is, 4 more votes in favor than opposed. Injunctions are typically enacted 24 hours after the fourth net vote in favor, to allow any remaining Arbitrators a chance to vote. Injunctions end when the case is closed and the final decision is published.
[edit] Evidence
The parties and other interested editors are encouraged to place evidence on the case Evidence subpage. Evidence should be in the form of diffs to contested behavior, along with any necessary explanations and context. Generally, evidence presentations should be kept to under 1000 words and 100 diffs, although some flexibility is tolerated. The parties should be aware that argument is not evidence, and that 5 well-chosen diffs may speak more eloquently than a 500 word diatribe.
Editors are expected to only edit within their own section on the evidence page, and should not respond to other editor's evidence by adding comments in their section of the page. Make a subsection in your own section for rebuttal, or use the talk page. However, extended arguments over the validity and interpretation of the evidence is rarely helpful to the Arbitrators. Be clear and concise when making your evidence presentation.
[edit] The Workshop
The Workshop subpage allows the parties, the community and the Arbitrators to analyze the evidence, offer suggestions about possible final decision proposals, and receive feedback. Parties and editors should keep a few things in mind when writing workshop proposals.
- Be aware of the kinds of proposals that have been offered in prior similar cases. For example: the Arbitration committee does not make content rulings, so a proposal that "The article Fooberries will be restored to my version of 12 August 2007" is a complete non-starter.
- Proposed principles should be grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Don't offer proposals like "Topical experts should be given special deference" or "Editors do not need to cite sources when writing about themselves."
- Proposed findings of fact should be supported by evidence on the evidence page. Linking to the evidence page or a few of the best diffs illustrating the point is helpful.
- Proposed remedies should be supported by the findings of fact. A proposal to ban User:Smith from editing requires substantial evidence that User:Smith has violated community editing norms.
Although each workshop proposal includes space for comments by the Arbitrators, parties, and others, the workshop is not a vote, nor is it a debate. Casting a "vote" of support for your favorite proposals is less informative than a brief comment of why you think it is a good proposal, while getting into an argument with the other party in the case is less useful to the Arbitrators than a concise explanation of why you agree or disagree with a proposal. Extended discussions should be taken to the talk page.
[edit] Proposed decision and voting
After considering the evidence and workshop pages, and any private discussions among the Arbitration committee, one or more Arbitrators will write a proposed decision and place the case into voting. For the final decision, votes are cast and counted according to a simple majority of the active Arbitrators. Thus, if there are 11 active Arbitrators, 6 votes constitutes a majority and any proposal that receives 6 or more votes in support is considered passed. The number of votes in opposition does not normally come into play, although see Conditional voting below. Frequently, cases with straightforward and noncontroversial decisions will close as soon as a majority vote is reached on the key proposed principles, findings and remedies, as keeping the case open for the remaining Arbitrators to vote can lead to delays in finalizing the decision and additional votes, even in opposition, can not change the outcome once a majority is reached.
Arbitrators may vote to Support or Oppose a proposal or may vote Abstain. A vote of "Abstain" reduces the number of Arbitrators participating with respect to that proposal and may reduce the majority needed to pass that proposal. For example, if there are 12 active Arbitrators (a majority being 7) and one Arbitrator votes abstain on a proposal, the number of Arbitrators active on that proposal is considered to be 11 and the majority required to pass is considered to be 6. This means that a vote of "Abstain" is treated differently than lack of participation. If there are 12 Arbitrators listed as "active" but only 7 or 8 vote in the case, the views of the non-voting Arbitrators can not be assumed. However, a vote to Abstain is interpreted to mean that the Arbitrator has no firm opinion and is willing to allow that principle to be decided by the consensus of the other Arbitrators.
- Conditional voting
The Arbitrators will sometimes offer alternative proposals, and may cast conditional votes. For example, if both a one month and six month ban are proposed, an Arbitrator may vote "First choice" on one and "Second choice" on the other, indicating that she has a preference for one or the other but that both are acceptable. Arbitrators may also vote "Support-no preference either way" on alternative proposals or may cast definitive votes ("Support a one month ban but oppose a 6 month ban as too long", or "Support a 6 month ban unless the one month ban also passes in which case oppose a 6 month ban.") When a case has multiple alternative proposals, the following procedure is generally used to determine which proposals pass.
- All "first choice" and "No preference" votes are tallied and any proposals that reach the majority pass.
- If no alternative passes, then second choice votes are added, then third choice, etc.
If at any stage, more than one alternative passes, then they will both be included in the final decision unless they are contradictory. (It rarely presents a problem to pass multiple alternate versions of the principles and findings of fact; it may represent a significant problem if contradictory remedies pass.) If contradictory proposals can not be resolved by considering conditional votes, then the clerks will attempt to determine the consensus of the committee by considering the total votes cast in support and opposition. For example, if the majority is 6, a proposal with a vote of 7-0 will be passed over an alternative with a vote of 6-3.
Arbitrators are encouraged to be as unambiguous in their voting as possible. The clerks are encouraged to bring ambiguous or difficult interpretations to the Arbitrators' attention by commenting in the Implementation notes section of the Proposed Decision page.
[edit] Closing the case
Once the voting on the proposed decision has met the majority needed to pass the proposals, a clerk will usually leave a comment in the Implementation notes section of the proposed decision page, indicating which proposals pass and fail and the interpretation of any conditional votes on alternative proposals. If the Arbitrators are satisfied that the final decision reflects the consensus of the committee, an Arbitrator will make a motion to close the case. Cases will be closed after the fourth net vote to close is made, but no sooner than 24 hours after the motion to close is made.
The Motion to Close phase allows the Arbitrators a final opportunity to review the case and the voting, to make sure that any conditional votes have been interpreted correctly, and that the outcome of the case reflects their intent. Arbitrators may object to closing a case if they feel the decision is not clear, the interpretation is not correct, or in order to allow time for additional Arbitrators to cast their votes.
After there are 4 net votes to close the case, the case will be closed by the clerks. The decision will be published to the talk pages of the participants and to the Administrators' noticeboard, and any remedies (blocks, bans, article or editorial restrictions) will take effect at that time.
[edit] The role of Arbitration Committee clerks
The Arbitration committee has appointed a group of clerks to assist them in the Arbitration process. The clerks process requests, open and close cases (performing the required notifications) and perform other cleanup and formatting tasks on Arbitration-related pages. The clerks also serve as a resource for parties who wish help or advice in filing or responding to a Request for arbitration or help in adding evidence to cases once they have opened. Clerk business is co-ordinated through the Clerks' Noticeboard.
[edit] During the case
 |
Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
This section is as-yet not authored. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case may be a suitable alternative, for editors requiring information about operations of a case in-consideration, which is essentially the case presentation stage.
[edit] Case enforcement and after the case
Most cases will result in some form of decision in the form of remedies, and enforcement measures, which the community can then operate.
These may be enforced in many ways; the most common being administrative action. If there is an ongoing or future problem after the case closes, then enforcement can be requested by any user at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, or for other issues at the administrators' incidents noticeboard, citing the arbitration case and evidence of the problem. The latter would be appropriate if for example, a sockpuppet began undertaking the same pattern, of a user under sanctions engaged in new and significant egregious behavior requiring administrative consideration of communally imposed additional restrictions and remedies.
If the remedy or enforcement regime itself proves insufficient or needs expanding or extending, or is not as helpful as anticipated, then the Arbitration Committee will hear a request for amendment (or extension) of remedies. This is useful when the remedy does not anticipate some development taking place after the case, such as the user edits on other articles on a restricted topic, or games the system in other ways.
A user under restrictions or sanctions is under these to prevent certain forms of conduct. In some cases, these preventative measures last a long time. An appeal can be made for their reconsideration, but usually a significant track record is required, and recidivism is considered more seriously if it then recurs, since this suggests the appeal was not intended seriously.
[edit] See also
- How to present a case – Recommended reading: An (unofficial) guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases
- Case handling – An (unofficial) note of common Committee practices in accepted cases
- Past decisions – Some principles from prior cases
- Arbitration enforcement noticeboard – Any user can request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision
- Administrator enforcement requested – Summary of cases and remedies currently in force
- Completed requests – summaries and links to all closed arbitration cases
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests – links to rejected cases (largely incomplete prior to May 2007)
