Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Case handling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is meant to provide further information covering how arbitration cases are handled once accepted, including practices that have evolved over time. This is so that editors with an interest in a case can gain a better understanding of how certain matters are commonly approached, and the historic rationale for certain decisions.
However, note that the Arbitration Committee is not bound by precedent.
[edit] Common case handling practices
- Cases are sometimes allowed to take considerable time, even if (apparently) obvious. This is because often over time, if allowed to stand, new material will be added that otherwise would not have come to light. For this reason an arbitration case will often be allowed to stand open for a number of weeks, to ensure maximal opportunity for new information to be added.
- Material correctly posted is usually allowed to stand, even if one of the parties is using the arbitration pages as a platform for personal attack or misrepresentation. Behavior at arbitration can be, and is, part of the evidence, and both sides will usually be allowed to present their evidence in full, and at length. (See #1)
-
- Caveat 1: Evidence of a genuinely sensitive nature is still subject to WP:OVERSIGHT, or may be presented by email directly,
- Caveat 2: Posts on arbitration pages may be refactored or reorganized by the clerks, to keep them short, correctly presented, and to the point.
-
- Content issues are not normally considered. The Arbitration Committee is established to look at conduct rather than content issues.
- The committee may at times cap its own bans at one year. This can seem confusing when a party has caused significant disruption, but is not as restrictive as it may seem. In such cases, the extension of a year's ban or its conversion to an indefinite ban is being left for future and to the community. At a simple level, everyone can reform, and everyone is given that chance. However, the community will take note of the year's ban, and those who fail to reform will often find that the opportunity for disruption is quite limited upon returning. Usually the community reblocks unrepentant disruptive editors for repetition fairly soon after returning, and fairly rapidly they may become indefinitely banned. Those who choose to breach their year's ban will fall foul of sock puppet policy and likewise meet the same fate.
- Not all issues need a ruling. Arbitration decisions tend to focus on the main issues, and the conduct involved, and allow the rest of the arbitration pages to speak for themselves in that light (See #1). If an involved party thinks a serious issue is being ignored, then this is best queried on the talk page of the appropriate discussion page, or checked with the clerk of the case who may be able to provide useful explanation.
- Balance and patience is often difficult for agitated parties. We often look at cases with a balance that parties may not have, and it's often a concern of parties what to read into it. We have a norm, and that norm can sometimes take a less "nuclear" option, and sometimes a much tougher line, than various parties would see as "their view". Often we watch a while, when to those involved it's very obvious that something must be done "this moment"; more review of this kind can help shape good decisions.
- Arbitration is generally a last resort when it becomes clear the community will probably not resolve the matter. When we do act, it's for the community, and it takes away a dispute from the community. We don't do that lightly, and if the community is even possibly showing it may be able to handle it, then there are very few matters where we would not allow that chance, until it is clear there is a need to deal with it at Arbitration.
