User:Barkeep49/ArbCom Guide
Status[edit]
A complete first draft is done. The next step is feedback from community members and arbs.
Questions/issues[edit]
- Better hat note
- Figure out what of existing header info should cary over
Guide 1: Guide to Arbcom for Parties: Introduction[edit]
 | This page is a guide for people who are parties to an ArbCom case. Please see the Arbitration Policy and the Arbitration Committee's Procedures for authoritative information. This page is maintained by members of the Arbitration Committee and their Clerks. Editing requires considerable forethought and usually (for major changes) arbitrator agreement. |
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
| Case name | Closed |
|---|---|
| Conflict of interest management | 13 Apr 2024 |
| Mzajac | 7 May 2024 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing | none | (orig. case) | 30 April 2024 |
| Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 | none | (orig. case) | 13 May 2024 |
| Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation | none | (orig. case) | 13 May 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
This is part of a series of guides for parties to an Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) case. The other guides are about Case Requests, Introduction to Cases, Evidence phase, Workshop phase, Proposed decision phase, and Final decision and after the case. The guides are designed to be useful when you need information about that part of the process and do not need to be read at once. For a comprehensive introduction to ArbCom please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration or consult the official policy and procedure pages.
Introduction[edit]
Arbitration is an exceptional step in a dispute and has a number of rules and norms that are unlike those of the rest of Wikipedia. If you do not understand how Arbitration approaches your dispute, you may find the process bewildering and unpleasant. This guide is intended to introduce to the Arbitration Committee and give you background so you can understand what's expected of you.
Features of Arbitration Cases[edit]
- Act as a last resort: Arbitration Cases are designed to be the final stage of Wikipedia dispute resolution. This means a problem has normally been discussed at other places and by the community as a whole before they become an Arbitration Case. When this hasn't happened, the Arbitration Committee will normally decline to hear the case. An exception to this is certain kinds of misconduct from administrators. The Arbitration Committee continues to be a last resort in this cases, but because it is the only group which may remove an administrator it will sometimes hear a case about administrators without prior steps in the dispute resolution process.
- Examine conduct not content: The Arbitration Committee only handles the behavior of editors and does not get to have the final say about content in articles. There are times when the editor misbehavior may be about content, but the process is still about the behavior of the editor not about the content. For example, an editor who lies about what a source says may be sanctioned for the lie.
- "Break the back" of the dispute: Because it's a last resort, a dispute may come to arbitration after many months, or even years of conflict. Some disputes are related to a long-term, real-life controversy or dispute. Many disputants, perhaps including you, will be frustrated with the dispute. Arbitrators will aim to clarify the issues among themselves and establish the case's history, then take action so that the dispute becomes easier for the community to resolve or to manage on an ongoing basis. Arbitration will rarely resolve a situation completely.
- Not be a legal process: With no fixed approaches to problems, all actions, conduct, and relevant evidence may be taken into account.[note 1] A person's general manner, past actions, and the impressions of them by reasonable people will be used to guide the arbitrators into establishing how best to soothe the dispute.
- Intended to serve Wikipedia: Arbitrators focus on the risk and benefits for the future, not on past issues. Arbitration aims to find the best way to move users beyond the dispute. For this reason, the committee is more likely to consider if a user can change, or what restrictions would be of benefit to the project, than on who said what in the past.
The people involved in a case[edit]
Arbitration Committee[edit]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities.
Arbitrators are volunteers (like other Wikipedia editors) elected by the Wikipedia community to resolve the project's most intractable disputes and to oversee the few areas where access to non-public information is a prerequisite. They are neither Wikimedia Foundation employees nor agents nor Wikipedia executives.
Expertise[edit]
Arbitrators are not subject experts and the Arbitration Committee therefore does not rule on content disputes. As a result, they are hesitant to making a ruling on the grounds that one side is right in a content dispute. There are exceptions to this; for instance, the committee has historically taken a dim view of individuals using Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy, or of editors who allege that a group of editors is conspiring to suppress their point of view.
Clerks[edit]
The Arbitration Committee maintains a panel of clerks to perform maintenance and administration of the Arbitration process. The clerks provide assistance to editors who wish to use the arbitration process but who are unfamiliar with the procedure. Clerks also perform some of the administrative tasks of a case. These include:
- Opening and closing cases (performing the required notifications),
- Ensuring that requests and proceedings comply with the specified format
- Enforcing conduct standards on the arbitration pages and in open cases
- Implementing most of the committee's decisions.
Clerk business is co-ordinated on the clerks' mailing list, to which all clerks and arbitrators are subscribed and your question or request to them might need to be discussed there before they can give you an answer.
Parties[edit]
Parties are the editors who the Arbitration Committee has identified as having an important role in the dispute the committee is examining. Being a party to a case does not mean an editor has done something wrong. It does mean that the Arbitration Committee is willing to hear evidence about that person, with-in the scope of the case. It also gives that editors certain privileges and responsibilities:
- There is a general expectation that a party will participate. When a party chooses not to participate the case will often go forward anyway and that party will forfeit the right to have their perspective considered. Participation can vary; some parties merely give a general statement at the Case Request and answer Arbitrator questions, while others will also present detailed evidence, analysis, and provide workshop proposals.
- Several processes have a word and diff limit. Parties are given additional words as a right and requests for further extensions are often looked at more favorably.
- Parties are given notifications related to the case, including when it opens, and if they are named, when the proposed decision is posted
Other interested editors[edit]
Any interested editor can participate in an Arbitration Case.
The phases of an Arbitration Case[edit]
For Arbitration Cases that go through the entire process here are the different phases
- Case Request (guide): the first step in the Arbitration Case process is for someone to request that there is a case. The person requesting the case is called the "filer". The filer will give the case a name and list potential parties. The name of the case and the parties are not yet finalized. Community members and parties can present further evidence and give a statement about the case. The Arbitrators will discuss the case and what to do. ArbCom must vote to open a case. If they do not, none of the remaining steps will happen. This is called declining a case.
- Case opening (guide): There will normally be a delay between when the Arbitrators vote to open a case and when the case is opened. When the case is opened, pages that editors and arbitrators use will be created, a name, scope of the case, and deadlines for the phases will be declared, and a list of parties will be announced. All parties will be notified when the case is opened. There will also be talk pages created for the different phases of the case. These talk pages are a great place for parties to ask questions about how cases and ArbCom work.
- Evidence (guide): During this phase editors and parties may submit evidence supported by diffs. There is normally a word and diff limit, but extension can be granted. This is the evidence that will be used by the arbitrators when deciding what actions to take.
- Workshop and analysis (guide): This phase is designed to help suggest how ArbCom should decide the case. In the workshop, editors and parties may suggest principles, findings of fact, and remedies (see Proposed Decision below for more information about these) and may also provide detailed analysis of the evidence. This is also the page Arbitrators will often use when they have questions they would like to see answered. Not every case will have a workshop phase; when this happens the analysis phase will sometimes remain a separate phase and sometimes will be merged with the evidence phase.
- Proposed decision (guide): This is the draft decision for the case. It will have three main sections:
- Principles - highlight the key applicable provisions of policy, procedure, or community practice and, where appropriate, provide the Committee's interpretation of such provisions in the context of the dispute.
- Findings of fact - summarize the key elements of the parties' conduct. Diffs (or other evidence) may be incorporated but are purely illustrative in nature unless explicitly stated otherwise.
- Remedies - specify the actions ordered by the Committee to resolve the dispute under considerations. Remedies may include both enforceable provisions (such as edit restrictions or bans) and non-enforceable provisions (such as cautions, reminders, or admonishments), and may apply to individual parties, to groups of parties collectively, or to all editors engaged in a specific type of conduct or working in a specific area.
- Each individual principle, finding of fact, and remedy will be voted on by Arbitrators. Arbitrators must also vote to close the case, at which time proposals that are passing become part of the final decision.
- Final decision (guide): After Arbitrators vote to close the case, the clerks will post and enact the decision. Parties to the named in the decision will be notified when this happens.
- Enforcement of the decision (guide): After the case, remedies such as topic bans may need to be enforced. If an editor is violating a remedy from a case, editors can go to the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard to ask that the remedy be enforced.
Expectations of behavior during Arbitration proceedings[edit]
The behavior, good and bad, of parties during a case is carefully considered by Arbitrators when making their final decision.
Mooning the jury[edit]
Parties should be on their best behavior while adding evidence or making comments on arbitration pages. While this should be obvious, a surprising number of participants, having been accused of aggressive, uncivil or point of view editing, continue this behavior to the case itself. Comments made by the parties during the Arbitration case may be taken into account by the Committee in setting any remedies, and continued evidence of disruptive behavior is often seen as evidence that milder remedies (warnings or probation) will not have the desired effect, leading to topic or site bans. Remember that if you are on trial for assault, it is generally not a good idea to start punching witnesses in open court.
Rhetoric and blustering[edit]
Clear and persuasive presentation of evidence will almost always be more effective than any debates or arguments. Almost nothing useful ever comes out of arguments among parties on the workshop page, the evidence page, or the talk pages, and the longer the arguments get, the lower the chance of anything being noticed or valued by the arbitrators. If you must engage in discussion, short and simple questions to arbitrators are probably the most effective method.
Mistakes to avoid[edit]
ArbCom is typically pro-Wikipedia, generally considers that the Wikipedia method works, that Wikipedia is on the whole a successful project, and that admins are generally trustworthy. They explicitly choose any outcome that results in Wikipedia working better.
Therefore, arguments opposing Wikipedia's basic principles, suggesting a massive cabal of rogue admins, or holding the process to be an end in itself will not work.
Arguing about flaws in the arbitration process is usually a waste of time and will make arbitrators look dimly upon you.
Pettifoggery is likely to create prejudice against your cause, as a person who can win on the merits of their case will probably not resort to wikilawyering.
Notes[edit]
- ^ The exception to this is private evidence, which is normally evidence which happens off-wiki. The arbitration committee may decline to hear private evidence in a case.
Guide 2: Guide to Arbcom for Parties: Case Requests[edit]
| This page is a guide for people who are parties to an ArbCom case. Please see the Arbitration Policy and the Arbitration Committee's Procedures for authoritative information. This page is maintained by members of the Arbitration Committee and their Clerks. Editing requires considerable forethought and usually (for major changes) arbitrator agreement. |
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
This is part of a series of guides for parties to an Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) case. The other guides are about Case Requests, Introduction to Cases, Evidence phase, Workshop phase, Proposed decision phase, and Final decision and after the case. The guides are designed to be useful when you need information about that part of the process and do not need to be read at once. For a comprehensive introduction to ArbCom please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration or consult the official policy and procedure pages.
Requesting Arbitration[edit]
In a request for Arbitration, an editor tries to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention, as well as preliminary evidence of wrongdoing. A short and factual statement of 500 words or fewer should be written, including diffs where appropriate, to illustrate specific instances of the problem. The filing user is also expected to show that prior dispute resolution has already been attempted. It can be appropriate to file a case even if a noticeboard discussion remains open, if it does not seem like the discussion is headed towards a consensus that addresses the issue.
Exceptions to showing prior dispute resolution apply to situations where the Arbitration committee is the only possible venue of dispute resolution, e.g. administrator misconduct or those involving a mix of on-wiki and off-wiki evidence.
The Request is intended to be a summary of the available evidence including enough information to show why Arbitration is needed. You are not trying to prove your case at this time you: if your case is accepted for Arbitration, an evidence page will be created that you can use to provide more detail.
Alternatives to requesting Arbitration[edit]
- A Request for Comment is an effective way to resolve a content dispute by inviting other editors to give their thoughts. This is the most common process editors should have done rather than file an arbitration request.
- Administrator's Noticeboard or Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents to discuss user behavior
- Administrative action review to discuss a single action by an administrator
- Dispute Resolution Noticeboard can provide a structured approach for users with content disputes
Making a statement at a case request[edit]
If you are named as an involved party in a request for an arbitration case, or if you feel you must respond to any request or to comments made by others in any request, then you may make a statement on the case page. You must remember that Arbitration cases are not debate pages; their purpose is to petition the committee by making an argument (with appropriate evidence) as to why arbitration is necessary or unnecessary, and to allow the committee to gauge the views of the community and the parties about the request. Statements may also be made in order to correct inaccuracies in other statements, or to draw other matters to the attention of the arbitrators. The best statements are short and factual statement, including diffs where appropriate.
All statements are subject to a maximum word limit, which you may not exceed. The purpose of these word limits is to prevent lengthy case requests, which obfuscate the discussion and delay the delivery of each arbitrator's decision about the request. For requests for an arbitration case, the maximum word count is 500 words, although this can be relaxed, upon request, in the case of parties to the dispute, and especially for the filing party who must usually respond to many comments by the arbitrators.
If an arbitrator or clerk removes or amends your statement or comments, you may not revert this action, because it will have been made in order to properly manage the request. However, you may raise the matter with the clerk or arbitrator directly if you believe there has been a mistake.
Responding to others[edit]
If you must respond to some statement by another editor on the arbitration request, then you must do so in your own section. There may be no threaded discussion (that is, comments in any section but your own) on any arbitration request; any such threaded discussion will be summarily removed by a clerk or arbitrator. Responses to other editors may be made in your own section in the following form:
; Response to statement by User:Example : {your comment} ~~~~
Deciding requests[edit]
After a request is submitted, the active arbitrators vote on whether to hear the case. An arbitrator may vote to accept or decline a request. Votes are recorded in this format: 0/0/0, where each digit is (respectively) the number of arbitrators who have: voted to accept/voted to decline/recused from voting.
"Recuse" means that an Arbitrator has excused themselves from a case because of a possible or perceived conflict of interest. Votes, suggestions, or questions that do not fit into one of the previous three categories, such as comments that are not formal accept/decline votes, are taken to be comments that have not cast a vote. Even comments which suggest an arbitrator is inclined towards one or another decision are not taken to be a vote unless it is explicitly marked as such. Votes are usually given in bold print, like Accept, or will otherwise make it clear what the vote is (e.g. "Decline.").
Criteria to open a case[edit]
A request will proceed to arbitration if it meets all of the following criteria:
- Its acceptance has been supported by either of (i) four net votes (that is, four more "accept" than "decline" votes) or (ii) an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators;
- More than 24 hours have elapsed since the request came to satisfy the above provision; and
- More than 48 hours have elapsed since the request was filed.
A majority of arbitrators may vote to waive the minimum time requirements, although this is currently quite unusual.
What happens after a decision[edit]
Once the Committee has accepted a request, a clerk will create the applicable case pages, give the proceeding a working title, and list the parties to the case. The title is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The parties may change from those that were included when the case was filed. A notice linking to further information, including links to newly created "Evidence" and "Workshop" pages, will be posted to each party's talk page. The opening of a case takes 24-48 hours, or often even longer, after it has met the 3 criteria as the Arbitrators discuss the decisions necessary to open a case.
Cases are removed when they are declared "premature", which means that the problem does not come close to meeting the requirements of a case (e.g. it is a content dispute between two editors), or when it is clear there will not be enough arbitrator support to open a case.
Deciding a case by motion[edit]
In some circumstances, the Arbitrators will decide to write a motion rather than moving to open a case. The motion will get its own sub-section and Arbitrators will vote to Support, Oppose, or Abstain/Recuse on the motion. A majority of active arbitrators, who are not abstaining or recused, must support the motion for it to pass. Parties and other interested editors may comment about the case in their own subsections.
Motions will sometimes be in place of a case, other times motions will give the conditions under which a case may be opened. For instance, in recent years for certain cases against administrators when the administrator has been absent, the committee has given the administrator a certain number of months to request a case.
Expectations of behavior during Arbitration proceedings[edit]
The behavior, good and bad, of parties during a case is carefully considered by Arbitrators when making their final decision.
Mooning the jury[edit]
Parties should be on their best behavior while adding evidence or making comments on arbitration pages. While this should be obvious, a surprising number of participants, having been accused of aggressive, uncivil or point of view editing, continue this behavior to the case itself. Comments made by the parties during the Arbitration case may be taken into account by the Committee in setting any remedies, and continued evidence of disruptive behavior is often seen as evidence that milder remedies (warnings or probation) will not have the desired effect, leading to topic or site bans. Remember that if you are on trial for assault, it is generally not a good idea to start punching witnesses in open court.
Rhetoric and blustering[edit]
Clear and persuasive presentation of evidence will almost always be more effective than any debates or arguments. Almost nothing useful ever comes out of arguments among parties on the workshop page, the evidence page, or the talk pages, and the longer the arguments get, the lower the chance of anything being noticed or valued by the arbitrators. If you must engage in discussion, short and simple questions to arbitrators are probably the most effective method.
Mistakes to avoid[edit]
ArbCom is typically pro-Wikipedia, generally considers that the Wikipedia method works, that Wikipedia is on the whole a successful project, and that admins are generally trustworthy. They explicitly choose any outcome that results in Wikipedia working better.
Therefore, arguments opposing Wikipedia's basic principles, suggesting a massive cabal of rogue admins, or holding the process to be an end in itself will not work.
Arguing about flaws in the arbitration process is usually a waste of time and will make arbitrators look dimly upon you.
Pettifoggery is likely to create prejudice against your cause, as a person who can win on the merits of their case will probably not resort to wikilawyering.
Guide 3: Guide to Arbcom for Parties: Introduction to Cases[edit]
This is part of a series of guides for parties to an Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) case. The other guides are about Case Requests, Introduction to Cases, Evidence phase, Workshop phase, Proposed decision phase, and Final decision and after the case. The guides are designed to be useful when you need information about that part of the process and do not need to be read at once. For a comprehensive introduction to ArbCom please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration or consult the official policy and procedure pages.
Overview of cases[edit]
If a request for arbitration is accepted, and an arbitration case is opened, a series of pages will be created. On these pages, editors will be able to post, update, and otherwise edit their Evidence as well as provide their own notes on others' comments. They may also take part in the Workshop, a structured consideration of the case open to the community, including Involved Parties and Arbitrators. Finally, they may submit questions on the relevant Talk pages.
To facilitate efficient case processing, the Committee designate one or more arbitrators to be the drafting arbitrator(s) or drafter(s) for the case. The drafter(s) will take a leading role in the management of a case, such as deciding specific standards of conduct, adding or removing parties, and granting extensions to word limits. The drafter(s) will also author the proposed decision (link to PD guide here) for the case. Other members of the Committee will then vote on the proposals, and, if they wish, propose alternatives or additions to the decision.
The clerks, in partnership with the drafter(s), are responsible for managing conduct on case pages. They may remove, hat or refactor posts from parties and non-parties. The clerks may also warn editors regarding unacceptable behaviour during the case, and, if the misconduct continues, impose sanctions (such as banning editors from the case pages) or block them from editing. If you wish to report misconduct or inappropriate posts to the clerks you should leave a message on the clerks' noticeboard to email the clerks (clerks-l
lists.wikimedia.org
[edit]
To help parties and editors, a template will be included on each page of the case providing links to the pages of the case, the target dates for when each part of the case will happen (e.g. when the evidence phase is scheduled to be closed), and who the case clerk and drafter(s) are. Often times there will be an official "scope" listed in this box as well. This scope is used to determine which evidence the Arbitration Committee will and won't accept.
Differences between a case and a trial[edit]
Some distinctions between this and trials in western democratic systems, include the fact that there can be more than two sides, the expectation is that people represent themselves, and past cases don't form a binding precedent. Interested parties can also give input into the resolution, both by proposing it (at the workshop), and commenting on it before it is enacted (at the proposed decision).
Participation[edit]
There are many opinions among Wikipedians about whether parties to a case, especially parties who are the focus of a case, should participate in the case. Because misbehavior at a case is spoken about more clearly and prominently than when Arbs give credit for positive behavior at a case it can create a misleading impression of how often each happens.
Parties who help themselves during a case do this in a number of ways including:
- Keeping calm - a case is a stressful situation and so Arbs take it as a good sign that even when things get hard, a party is able to deal with it calmly
- Displaying a "problem solving" attitude
- Use appropriately descriptive, rather than hyperbolic, language to allege misconduct and backing those allegations in the form of evidence, such as diffs - for instance calling a something "a single talk page message after being asked not to leave any more" rather than "the editor harassed me on my talk page despite knowing better"
- Following the rules - an example is asking for an extension before going over word limits
- Being concise and making it clear for arbitrators about what behavior and what policies are or aren't problematic - thirty words and five well-chosen diffs may make more of an impact than a 500-word exhaustive examination
Parties who find their behavior during a case used against them will have done the opposite of one or more of the behaviors above, most commonly failing to keep calm or otherwise engaging in conflict with other parties.
Case variations[edit]
The drafter(s) can make changes in order to best handle a particular case. Some of the more common variations are listed below, but other variations may also occur.
No workshop[edit]
The most common variation is to skip the Workshop phase of a case. When this happens the analysis phase will sometimes remain a separate phase and sometimes will be merged with the evidence phase.
Parties added during a case[edit]
Sometimes it becomes clear as evidence is presented that the parties initially listed in a case do not represent all the editors who are actually party to the dispute. When this happens an editor may be added as a party to the case after it has opened. While this does not mean that the editor has done anything wrong, it does mean that there is already evidence of the added party's involvement in the dispute. Normally when a party is added, the evidence phase will be extended to give the added party the same minimum amount of time for evidence (normally two weeks) that had originally been planned. In some situations, the committee may know from the case request that the parties list is incomplete and so they may give a set period of time (normally 1 week) during which editors may provide evidence about who the other parties to the dispute are.
Two stages for the evidence phase[edit]
For cases with larger scopes, sometimes the evidence phase will be broken into two stages. When this happen it generally means that during the first stage all evidence with-in the scope of the case will be accepted, there will then be a pause to allow arbitrators to examine the evidence already submitted, and a second stage where editors may post "rebuttal" evidence to evidence from the first stage or post evidence in response to requests or questions from arbitrators.
Private evidence accepted[edit]
Normally, only on-wiki evidence will be accepted during a public case. If private information is involved, the committee will often handle it privately. In unusual circumstances, the committee may decide to accept private evidence even while conducting a public case. This normally happens when there is sufficient on-wiki evidence of misconduct to allow a case but also off-wiki evidence not allowed to be presented publicly under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Traditionally, in these kinds of cases the Arbitration Committee will, when the evidence phase closes, submit some kind of note or summary about the private evidence and include anonymized links to any on-wiki evidence noted in the private submission (example).
Temporary injunctions[edit]
The arbitrators may feel that it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia (to prevent further disruption and maintain decorum) to prevent the participants temporarily from continuing the disputed conduct until the case is concluded. Temporary injunctions do not necessarily foretell the outcome of the case.
Guide 4: Guide to Arbcom for Parties: Evidence phase[edit]
This is part of a series of guides for parties to an Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) case. The other guides are about Case Requests, Introduction to Cases, Evidence phase, Workshop phase, Proposed decision phase, and Final decision and after the case. The guides are designed to be useful when you need information about that part of the process and do not need to be read at once. For a comprehensive introduction to ArbCom please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration or consult the official policy and procedure pages.
Introduction to the evidence phase[edit]
Parties and other interested editors are encouraged to place evidence on the case's Evidence subpage, in the form of diffs demonstrating behavior along with explanations and context. Be clear and concise. The parties should be aware that argument is not evidence, and that thirty words and five well-chosen diffs may speak more eloquently than a 500-word diatribe.
Serious allegations require serious evidence, with each aspect of the evidence supported by illustrative diffs. An arbitrator or clerk may remove statements which are not adequately substantiated.
By default, submissions are limited to about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for named parties, and to about 500 words and about 50 diffs for all other editors. Editors wishing to submit evidence longer than the default limits are expected to obtain the approval of the drafting arbitrator(s) via a request on the /Evidence talk page prior to posting it.
Editors are expected to edit only within their own section on the evidence page. Responses to another editor's evidence should be placed in a subsection in your own section for rebuttal, or on the talk page. Note that extended arguments over the validity and interpretation of the evidence are rarely helpful to the Arbitrators.
How to submit effective evidence[edit]
Ultimately, the audience for evidence are the Arbitrators. While other parties and editors may comment and discuss the evidence, parties should submit evidence with Arbitrators in mind. There are two very important things to realize about the Arbitration Committee and its members:
- They do not have much time, and
- They care much more about product than process.
Almost everything below is a corollary of one or both of these statements.
Brevity[edit]
Evidence pages quickly become very long. Arbitrators do not have time to read or re-read very long evidence pages. Therefore, try to keep your evidence concise, direct, and clear. Trying to show every single instance of a given user being a problem may be less useful than picking a few clear and obvious example requiring little explanation and presented with minimal commentary.
Context[edit]
Provide the context for your evidence. Explain why the edits you cite are proof of your assertion: e.g., "edit X shows user Y disrupting consensus-building because ABC...".The more that the diff you provide directly shows what you allege, without an arbitrator having to read anything else, the better. For example, if you point to an edit that follows a month of heated discussion, it may not make sense to someone who was uninvolved. If there is better evidence for the same point, use that. Evidence requiring less explanation is more likely to be read, understood, and to be useful to the Arbitrators.
Background context[edit]
It is unlikely that all ArbCom members have already read about your dispute prior to the request for arbitration. For this reason, they are unlikely to know the history of the dispute, who advocates which point of view, who has a history of defending problem users, or if everybody who has ever dealt with a user recognizes them to be a complete lunatic.
Point these things out to them, with evidence.
If you mention to the Committee a user that the ArbCom has sanctioned, they may remember the user (if the same arbitrators in on the Committee), but may not remember particular details of the ruling or which POV that user was advocating. Therefore, write your evidence and proposals to help jog their memories, and don't assume that every time an arbitrator pulls up the evidence page they will have perfect recall of their past decisions.
Mistakes to avoid[edit]
ArbCom is typically pro-Wikipedia, generally considers that the Wikipedia method works, that Wikipedia is on the whole a successful project, and that admins are generally trustworthy. They explicitly choose any outcome that results in Wikipedia working better.
Therefore, arguments opposing Wikipedia's basic principles, suggesting a massive cabal of rogue admins, or holding the process to be an end in itself will not work.
Arguing about flaws in the arbitration process is usually a waste of time and will make arbitrators look dimly upon you.
Pettifoggery is likely to create prejudice against your cause, as a person who can win on the merits of their case will probably not resort to wikilawyering.
Guide 5: Guide to Arbcom for Parties: Workshop and analysis phase[edit]
This is part of a series of guides for parties to an Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) case. The other guides are about Case Requests, Introduction to Cases, Evidence phase, Workshop phase, Proposed decision phase, and Final decision and after the case. The guides are designed to be useful when you need information about that part of the process and do not need to be read at once. For a comprehensive introduction to ArbCom please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration or consult the official policy and procedure pages.
Workshop[edit]
The Workshop allows parties, the community, and 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 2023" is a complete non-starter.
- Principles highlight the key applicable provisions of policy, procedure, or community practice and, where appropriate, provide the Committee's interpretation of such provisions in the context of the dispute. 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." Suggesting a principle from a past case can be particularly effective, as arbitrators often try to re-use principles rather than write new ones.
- Proposed findings of fact (FoF) should be supported by evidence on the /Evidence page. You are expected to link to the applicable sections of the /Evidence page, and to include a few of the best diffs, to illustrate each aspect of the finding of fact.
- Proposed remedies should be supported by the findings of fact. A proposal to ban User:Example from editing requires substantial evidence that User:Example has violated community editing norms. Do not submit a proposed remedy, unless you can also point to a proposed finding of fact, either from yourself or another editor, that supports it.
Failure to link a finding of fact to evidence and/or a remedy to a finding of fact is a common mistake. This mistake will mean that arbitrators normally do not give much consideration to the proposal, and can, in some cases means the proposal is removed completely. It also does not reflect well on the person who proposed it.
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 another party in the case is less useful to the Arbitrators than a concise explanation of why you agree or disagree with a proposal.
Not every case will have a workshop phase. In some cases, there may be additional restrictions placed on the workshop as well (such as no proposing remedies). Occasionally, arbitrators may put up their own workshop proposals for feedback and giving feedback about those proposals can be particularly helpful.
Analysis[edit]
This is intended to allow editors to do detailed explanations of evidence that has been submitted. For instance, if an editor has submitted a single diff that is part of a much longer conversation it can be useful to explain how it fits in to the larger context of the conversation. All analysis should directly mention specific evidence that is being analyzed. While there are normally not word limits for analysis, shorter well crafted analysis is normally more effective than longer more comprehensive analysis. While there is also space for discussion of analysis, prolonged debates about analysis are often less helpful than having contrasting well stated positions and letting the arbitrators judge how much they agree with each.
Expectations of behavior during Arbitration proceedings[edit]
The behavior, good and bad, of parties during a case is carefully considered by Arbitrators when making their final decision.
Mooning the jury[edit]
Parties should be on their best behavior while adding evidence or making comments on arbitration pages. While this should be obvious, a surprising number of participants, having been accused of aggressive, uncivil or point of view editing, continue this behavior to the case itself. Comments made by the parties during the Arbitration case may be taken into account by the Committee in setting any remedies, and continued evidence of disruptive behavior is often seen as evidence that milder remedies (warnings or probation) will not have the desired effect, leading to topic or site bans. Remember that if you are on trial for assault, it is generally not a good idea to start punching witnesses in open court.
Rhetoric and blustering[edit]
Clear and persuasive presentation of evidence will almost always be more effective than any debates or arguments. Almost nothing useful ever comes out of arguments among parties on the workshop page, the evidence page, or the talk pages, and the longer the arguments get, the lower the chance of anything being noticed or valued by the arbitrators. If you must engage in discussion, short and simple questions to arbitrators are probably the most effective method.
Mistakes to avoid[edit]
ArbCom is typically pro-Wikipedia, generally considers that the Wikipedia method works, that Wikipedia is on the whole a successful project, and that admins are generally trustworthy. They explicitly choose any outcome that results in Wikipedia working better.
Therefore, arguments opposing Wikipedia's basic principles, suggesting a massive cabal of rogue admins, or holding the process to be an end in itself will not work.
Arguing about flaws in the arbitration process is usually a waste of time and will make arbitrators look dimly upon you.
Pettifoggery is likely to create prejudice against your cause, as a person who can win on the merits of their case will probably not resort to wikilawyering.
Guide 6: Guide to Arbcom for Parties: Proposed decisions[edit]
This is part of a series of guides for parties to an Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) case. The other guides are about Case Requests, Introduction to Cases, Evidence phase, Workshop phase, Proposed decision phase, and Final decision and after the case. The guides are designed to be useful when you need information about that part of the process and do not need to be read at once. For a comprehensive introduction to ArbCom please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration or consult the official policy and procedure pages.
Structure of proposed decisions[edit]
The proposed decision is where arbitrators create and vote on the elements that make up the final decision. The initial proposed decision is normally the work of the drafters, sometimes with input from other arbitrators. It is divided into sections: "Principles", "Findings of Fact", "Remedies" and "Enforcement".
- Principles highlight the key applicable provisions of policy, procedure, or community practice and, where appropriate, provide the Committee's interpretation of such provisions in the context of the dispute.
- Findings of fact summarize the key elements of the parties' conduct. This will normally be supported by diffs or other evidence, but are generally meant to be illustrative in nature (e.g. a representative sampling) unless explicitly stated otherwise.
- Remedies specify the actions ordered by the Committee to resolve the dispute. Remedies may include both enforceable provisions (such as edit restrictions or bans) and non-enforceable provisions (such as reminders, warnings, or admonishments), and may apply to individual parties, to groups of parties collectively, or to all editors engaged in a specific type of conduct or working in a specific area.
- Enforcement contains instructions to the administrators responsible for arbitration enforcement, describing the procedure to be followed in the event that an editor subject to a remedy violates the terms of that remedy. The Committee uses standardised enforcement provisions which apply to every case unless specified otherwise.
In some cases the drafting arbitrators will propose multiple remedies for an editor. Sometimes these are intended to offer arbitrators choices - for instance some arbitrators may want to topic ban while others may want to site ban - while at other times they are intended to be complementary, for instance a warning against battleground behavior and a 1 revert restriction. Arbitrators will generally make clear whether they are complementary or a choice based on how they vote. Additionally, in some cases Arbitrators may choose to write a new proposal after the voting on the proposed decision has begun. This is generally in response to discussion among arbs and/or the feedback of parties and other editors.
Feedback on the proposed decision[edit]
The proposed decision page may not be edited by any editor who is not an arbitrator or clerks. However, comments about the decision may be offered on the talk page of the proposed decision with each editor writing only in their own section, like during the case request. The arbitrators active on the case usually monitor this page closely.
Voting[edit]
Arbitrators may vote to Support or Oppose a proposal or may Abstain from voting on certain proposals. When voting, Arbitrators will generally give an explanation for their votes for key proposals, often the remedies.
For the final decision, votes are counted according to a simple majority of the active, non-recused, arbitrators. For example, if there are 11 active, non-recused, arbitrators, any proposal that receives 6 or more votes in support is consider passed. The number of votes in opposition does not normally come into play, except in cases of conditional voting.
Clerks will normally create an implementation notes section. This section will include a table that summarizes the voting on the case, allowing arbitrators, clerks, and editors to see which proposals are passing, which are failing, and how many more votes are needed for a proposal to pass if there is no majority.
Conditional votes[edit]
Arbitrators will sometimes offer alternative proposals and may cast conditional votes. For example, if both a one-way and two-way interaction bans are proposed as remedies, an arbitrator may vote "First choice" on one and "Second choice" on the other, indicating that they have a preference for one or the other but that both are acceptable.
Arbitrators may also vote "Support, equal preference" on alternative proposals or may cast conditional votes (e.g., "Support the admonishment unless the topic ban passes, in which case oppose.")
When a case has multiple alternative proposals:
- All "first choice" and "No preference" votes are tallied and any proposals that reach the majority pass.
- If a first choice vote cannot pass, any second choice votes are then added to the support total. The process repeats with third choice, fourth choice, and so on.
If at any stage, more than one alternative passes, all will 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.
Arbitrators try to be as unambiguous in their voting as possible. The clerks may bring ambiguous or difficult interpretations to the arbitrators' attention. Other editors may bring ambiguous or difficult interpretations to the arbitrators' attention on the proposed decision talk page.
Closing a case[edit]
When an arbitrator feels like the the decision is complete they can vote to close the case. This requires a net 4 of arbitrator votes (e.g. if there are 2 opposes to closing the case there must be 6 supports) or a majority of active, unrecused arbitrators. The case may be closed 24 hours after either net 4 or a majority of arbitrators have voted to close the case.
Guide 7: Guide to Arbcom for Parties: Final decision and after the case[edit]
This is part of a series of guides for parties to an Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) case. The other guides are about Case Requests, Introduction to Cases, Evidence phase, Workshop phase, Proposed decision phase, and Final decision and after the case. The guides are designed to be useful when you need information about that part of the process and do not need to be read at once. For a comprehensive introduction to ArbCom please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration or consult the official policy and procedure pages.
Once the voting on the proposed decision has a majority, 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.
When the arbitrators are satisfied that the final decision reflects the consensus of the committee, an arbitrator will make a motion to close the case. 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 to allow time for other arbitrators to cast their votes.
Cases will be closed by the clerks after the fourth net vote to close is made, but no sooner than 24 hours after the motion to close is made.
The decision will be published to the talk pages of the participants, to the Administrators' noticeboard, and to the Arbitration noticeboard. Any remedies (blocks, bans, article or editorial restrictions) will take effect at that time.
Enforcement[edit]
Most cases will result in some form of decision in the form of remedies and enforcement measures to be enacted. These may be enforced in many ways, with the most common being administrative action.
If the problem behaviors continue after the case, then enforcement of restrictions imposed by the Committee can be requested by any user at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, citing the arbitration case and evidence of the problem, or for other issues at the administrators' incidents noticeboard (for example, if a suspected sockpuppet began undertaking the same pattern of editing, or if a user under sanctions engaged in new and significant egregious behavior requiring consideration of additional community-imposed restrictions).
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 editing other articles on a restricted topic, or gaming the system in other ways.
Appealing and clarifying a decision[edit]
Requests for clarifications and most appeals are made at appeals and clarifications noticeboard. Editors can also request amendments to cases at that noticeboard, such as a request to add or remove an area as a contentious topic. As with other parts of the arbitration process, other editors may offer opinions and evidence about the request.
Appeals[edit]
Editing restrictions or sanctions are intended to prevent certain forms of conduct, and these preventative measures may last a long time. Appeals can be made for their reconsideration, but usually a track record is required, and recidivism is taken very seriously. Appeals of site bans must be made via email, while other appeals are done onwiki.
Successful appeals demonstrate to the committee that the behavior which led to the restriction or sanction is unlikely to repeat. In the appeal, editors should demonstrate an understanding of what conduct led to the restriction or sanction and offer credible evidence about why it will not happen in the future. One way some editors do this This is by showing other productive editing on Wikipedia or a sister project.
Glossary[edit]
Meta comment: Where should this go? Be it's own thing? In guide 1? In every guide where one of the words is used? That will dictate format to some degree.
Below are a list of words used during ArbCom cases which have a specific meaning or intent that might not be obvious to the average reader. It is not intended to be a complete list of words used.
Admonish[edit]
The most severe reprimand of the remind, warn, admonish triplet. Used when ArbCom wishes to criticize and firmly caution someone against repeating certain behavior/actions.
Assume[edit]
To take over responsibility (Used interchangeably with take over)
Contentious topic[edit]
Specially designated topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project. Administrators are allowed to impose editing restrictions on editors who do not follow project expectations within contentious topics. Administrators are also allowed to set special rules on pages within a contentious topic to prevent inappropriate editing. See the contentious topic page for a full explanation.
Drafting Arbs[edit]
Implementation notes[edit]
A table that summarizes the voting on a proposed decision, allowing arbitrators, clerks, and editors to see which proposals are passing, which are failing, and how many more votes are needed for a proposal to pass if there is no majority.
Net Four[edit]
The number of votes to support or accept (or oppose or decline) is at least four greater than the number of votes to oppose or decline (or support or accept). For example if there are 2 declines, there must be at least 6 accepts for there to be net four.
Party[edit]
An editor who the Arbitration Committee has identified as having an important role in the dispute the committee is examining. A party may or may not be sanctioned, while non-parties are not eligible to be sanctioned.
Remind[edit]
1)The least severe reprimand of the remind, warn, admonish triplet. Used when ArbCom wishes an editor to not repeat certain behavior/actions.
2) Also is the most frequently used of the three words when addressing a group (e.g. the community or administrators). When addressing a group it is often be used to bring an option to that group's attention rather than as a reprimand (e.g. administrators are reminded that partial blocks may be used).
Take over[edit]
To assume responsibility (Used interchangeably with assume)
Warn[edit]
The middle reprimand option of the remind, warn, admonish triplet. Used when ArbCom wants to caution an editor to not repeat certain behavior/actions.
See also[edit]
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index