Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Proposed decision

Arbitration​Committee

This is part of a series of guides for parties to an Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) case. The guides are:

Introduction to ArbCom for parties	The case request	Introduction to cases	Evidence phase	Workshop and analysis phase	Proposed decision	Final decision and afterwards

Structure of proposed decisions

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

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

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 considered 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

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

When an arbitrator feels like 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.

Glossary

Below is 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

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

To take over responsibility (Used interchangeably with take over)

Contentious topic

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

See Overview of Cases

Implementation notes

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

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

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

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

To assume responsibility (Used interchangeably with assume)

Warn

The middle reprimand option of the remind, warn, admonish triplet. Used when ArbCom wants to caution an editor to not repeat certain behavior/actions.