Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating/FT2

This page represents a review of the first proposed version dated 17:58, 11 October 2008. Arbitration policy and arbitration requests governs some of the projects most sensitive areas. They are not lightly amended, and should be carefully thought about. Possible edits for discussion are in bold and explained via footnotes (summary on discussion page). FT2 (Talk | email) 12:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration represents the final step in the English Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures. This arbitration policy describes and provides guidelines for the workings of the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom). The Arbitration Policy was originally created and adopted in 2004, and has been updated in [month] 2008 by consensus of the community as endorsed by Jimbo Wales and the Arbitration Committee itself.^[1]

The Arbitration Committee members are appointed by Jimbo Wales in his role as project leader, following advisory elections whose format is decided by the community. At times interim appointments may be made or terms extended by Jimbo Wales due to early departures or long term inactivity, without such elections, but where possible these should be drawn from past arbitrators or candidates who ran successfully in a recent election.^[2] (Flag for discussion: This isn't ideal but it's the current norm. Rewrite this if a process for alternate Arbitrators is agreed upon.) The structure and membership of the Committee is discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.^[2] Arbitrators must meet the Foundation's criteria for access to nonpublic data. ^[3]

The Arbitration Committee has the following duties and responsibilities:

1. To act as last resort (other than Jimbo Wales) for Wikipedia disputes,^[4] to determine which requests presented by editors at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration are suitable for arbitration and should be accepted and opened as cases, and to carefully review and render decisions in these cases;
2. To consider and address appeals from blocked or banned users. (Partial deletion)^[5]
3. Where necessary, to deal in a summary fashion with urgent and emergency situations, such as those involving blatant abuse of administrator or other privileges, threatening or malicious conduct presenting a danger to the project or its contributors, and other situations that require immediate action or are not suited for on-wiki discussion because of privacy or similar concerns; and
4. To appoint certain functionaries of the English Wikipedia, including holders of the CheckUser and Oversight privileges, which may be granted to arbitrators and/or to other experienced editors.

The Committee has no jurisdiction over official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation, nor over any Wikimedia project(s) other than the English Wikipedia. (Moved from below) ^[6]

Arbitrators are users endorsed and trusted by the community to undertake some of the most sensitive and wide ranging issues within the community. The trust of the community, the integrity and good faith of arbitrators, and the high standards expected, are to be respected in private wiki-related discussions, as in public.^[7]

1. Good communication and high standards are expected of arbitrators. More so than administrators, they are expected to enact high standards even under reasonable pressure. Arbitrators will explain their Wiki conduct and matters relevant to their trusted roles, to their colleagues, if their actions cause concern, and (privacy permitting) to the community.^[7]

1. Arbitrators may participate in either off-wiki or on-wiki committee tasks or both. Arbitrators who are (or are likely to be) inactive will advise the Committee and will be noted as inactive on-wiki when that is the case. ^[8]
2. For any given case, an arbitrator is either active or inactive; the number of active arbitrators will determine the required quorum for voting purposes. An inactive arbitrator is deemed to be active on a case if they state they are active or by voting on any open matter in the case (including its acceptance). An active arbitrator may become inactive on a case by striking out their voting on any open matters and stating they are inactive. An inactive arbitrator may comment without becoming active. ^[8]
3. A member of the committee who has been unreliably active or has been inactive for an extended period, may be asked by the Committee to remain inactive on formal cases until the matter is resolved or, in exceptional cases, may be removed without prejudice from the Committee by decision of the Committee and Jimbo Wales.
4. An arbitrator may resign at any time, for any or no stated reason. ^[8]
5. An ex-arbitrator who resigns voluntarily may reclaim his or her seat at any time, until the date their appointment would have ended had they not resigned. Jimbo Wales may veto re-instatement, or remove an Arbitrator from the Committee, upon reasonable cause. ^[8]

Whether to accept or decline a request for arbitration is a matter of the arbitrators' discretion, which will be exercised in the best interests of the project and its contributors. Arbitration represents a forum for the binding resolution of disputes that cannot be or have not been resolved through other means. In general, the committee will require that editors show that they have exhausted other means of dispute resolution, such as talkpage discussion to attain consensus or mediation, before proceeding to arbitration.

While the Committee reserve the right to hear or not hear any dispute at its discretion, the following are general guidelines for the case acceptance process:

1. The arbitration process primarily addresses disputes involving user conduct, rather than content disputes concerning the contents of articles or similar issues. [CLARIFYING FOOTNOTE ADDED HERE]^[9]
2. The purpose of the arbitration process is not as a vehicle to create new policy. However, the committee's decisions can interpret or reconcile^[10] existing norms and practices,^[10] may recognize and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy may be enforced.

1. The committee is most likely to hear a case despite the absence of prior dispute resolution where the case involves an unusually divisive dispute among administrators (e.g., "wheel warring" situations), where there has already been extensive discussion with wide community participation (e.g., contested "community ban" situations), or where there is other specific reason to believe that engaging the earlier steps of the dispute resolution process would not be productive.
2. The committee will consider, but is not bound by, the views of the parties to a request for arbitration and comments by other interested users in deciding whether or not to accept a case.
3. In cases seeking review of a lengthy block or community ban, the blocked or banned user may forward his or her request for review to the committee by e-mail. The user may be allowed a limited unblock for the purpose of editing the relevant arbitration pages only, by decision of the committee (via on-wiki vote if requested).^[11]
4. The committee will automatically accept cases that have been referred to it for decision by Jimbo Wales and is likely to accept cases that are referred to it by formal request^[12] of the Mediation Committee.
5. Administrator or steward actions by Jimbo Wales taken in his special capacity (e.g., summary bannings or desysoppings) may be appealed to the committee. These cases are subject to acceptance under the same criteria as applied to other cases, and the committee may sustain, modify, or overturn the action of Jimbo Wales. The rule that Arbitration Committee decisions may be appealed to Jimbo Wales for his review does not apply in these cases.
6. The committee will accept a case for review provided that at least four arbitrators vote to accept the case, and more arbitrators vote to accept than to reject the case. (Flag for discussion: This is a proposed change from the existing policy.)^[13]
7. The committee will not reach a final decision on whether to accept or decline a case until there has been a reasonable opportunity for affected editors to comment. Once there are sufficient votes to accept, a waiting period of 24 hours will be observed before the case is formally opened, unless a majority of all active arbitrators have voted to accept the case or otherwise directed by the committee.
8. Where the facts of a situation are substantially undisputed and the committee believes that it can issue a fair, well-informed, and useful remedy without opening a full-fledged case, it may act by open motion which will be proposed and voted upon on the requests for arbitration page. Adopting such a motion in lieu of opening a case requires a majority vote of all active arbitrators.
9. Where the committee declines a case, the individual arbitrators may express their views on other means available for resolving the dispute, to which the parties should give due consideration.
10. (Moved to above) ^[6]

At any time between the opening of a case and its closure, the arbitrators may enact "temporary injunctions" to remain in effect until the case closes. Such injunctions take the form of remedies outlined below and are enforceable by blocks of appropriate length (usually no more than 24 hours for a first offense) against parties violating the injunction. An injunction is considered to have passed when four or more Arbitrators have voted in favour of it, where a vote in opposition negates a vote in support. A grace period of twenty-four hours is usually observed between the fourth affirmative vote and the enactment of the injunction; however, Arbitrators may, in exceptional circumstances, vote to implement an injunction immediately if four or more Arbitrators express a desire to do so in their votes, or if a majority of Arbitrators active on the case have already voted to support the injunction.

The process of considering and deciding cases is subject to the following guidelines:

1. When a request for arbitration is accepted, the Arbitration Clerk will create the standard "evidence", "workshop", and "proposed decision" pages. In the course of doing so, the committee or a clerk will designate the case with an appropriate casename. The name of the case is for purposes of speedy identification only, may change prior to close,^[14] and has no substantive significance.
2. Evidence, statements, and workshop proposals may be added to the case pages by the parties, interested others, and the Arbitrators themselves. Generally, the best evidence consists of, and should be supported by, Wikipedia edits ("diffs"), log entries for MediaWiki actions, posts to the official mailing lists, or other verifiable sources.
3. As a matter of policy, editors' behavior and comments in the course of an official requests for mediation process^[15] may not be used against them in any resulting Arbitration case. An exception exists under Mediation policy for some behaviors, but the Arbitration Committee will usually consider the presentation of such evidence grossly improper unless the Mediation Committee has been consulted and affirmed prior to posting that they will not oppose it. ^[16]
4. Except in unusual circumstances, a period of 7 days from the case opening will be allowed for the parties and other interested editors to present evidence and workshop proposals before the case proceeds to a proposed decision and arbitrator voting. Editors may continue presenting evidence and proposals after this period, but by that point the arbitrators may have moved on to the voting stage.
5. Evidence and statements should generally be presented on-wiki, as a matter of fairness to the parties and to allow for review and comment by other editors. However, where appropriate as a result of privacy or other considerations, editors may also forward evidence or statements via e-mail to the Arbitration Committee.
6. The committee may determine by majority vote that an entire case should be considered off-wiki, but this will be done only in extraordinary circumstances where warranted by considerations of privacy, risks of harassment, legal or other serious "real world" issues,^[17] or urgency. Editors whose conduct is under review in connection with such a case will be advised and given the opportunity to submit evidence before any action is taken, except in true emergency situations.
7. The length of statements and evidence may be subject to reasonable limits.
8. Personal writings (including emails, other website posts, chat logs, and other writings or quoted material, which are not intended by their respective author(s) to be readable by anyone at will), should not be posted on-wiki except with explicit permission of the communicants, authors of any material that is quoted in the cited text, and any recipients who are being publicly named. They should be submitted privately to the Committee or any active Arbitrator instead, with full email headers included. Where such permission is not forthcoming, a user wishing to cite from private correspondence on the Arbitration related pages may only do so if they obtain an arbitrator's opinion what is acceptable to post, and any redaction or summarizing needed, and the post is in accordance with that opinion. (Flagged for discussion: How much about an off-wiki communication may be stated or alluded to on-wiki?).^[18]
9. The arbitrators will use their best efforts to have a proposed decision drafted by an arbitrator, either on the workshop page or on the proposed decision page, within 7 days after the 7-day evidence period is closed (i.e., within 14 days after the case is opened). The arbitrators will use their best efforts to complete voting on the proposed decision within 7 days after the draft decision has been posted to the proposed decision page. However, these time guidelines are advisory, and no remedy will follow if the arbitrators are unable to meet them due to the press of other business or the complexity of a particular case.^[19]
10. If any stage of a case extends (or seems likely to extend) beyond the usual time allocated, then any Arbitrator should advise the community, and post an update giving details of progress and explanation no less than once every seven days. ^[20]

1. Arbitrators are not expected to be free of "history" of interaction with each user and topic, but their ability to reach a decision neutrally and fairly is paramount. Arbitrators are expected to assess their neutrality for each case and to take note of the concerns of others. An Arbitrator who may be perceived to have significant past interactions should either recuse, or else should disclose any prior issues (privately or on-wiki as appropriate), and explain the basis of their belief they are able to assess the case neutrally, if necessary. ^[21]
2. Any user may ask an Arbitrator to explain a non-recusal, and a prompt and considered response to the issues is expected. Concerns beyond this should be raised with the Committee. Recusal should not be sought or granted on trivial grounds, nor after the case has entered the voting stage. ^[21]
3. Any arbitrator may recuse from any case at any time prior to voting, or not post a vote on any matter, with or without a reason being given. ^[21]

1. Cases are decided by the full Arbitration Committee rather than by panels or subcommittees. All active arbitrators (i.e., those not on leave or away from Wikipedia) are entitled to participate in each case, unless an arbitrator is recused in a particular case.
2. Previous Arbitration Committee decisions are considered to be useful and informative, but are not binding on future committee decisions. ^[22]
3. Proposed decisions shall be posted and voted on on-wiki unless otherwise determined by a majority of the committee based on extraordinary cause.
4. The format of decisions shall generally follow the established format of principles (general statements of policy), findings of fact (findings specific to the case), remedies (binding rulings regarding what is to be done), and enforcement provisions.
5. Each substantive statement or topic of principles, facts, or remedies shall be placed in a separate paragraph for purposes of voting. Where multiple statements or remedies have been combined in a single paragraph, they will be separated for voting at the request of any arbitrator.
6. A majority vote of the active, non-recused arbitrators is required for the adoption of any portion of a decision. An arbitrator who abstains on a particular proposals is not counted in determining the required majority for purposes of that proposal only.
7. If the arbitrators determine at any time that issuing a formal decision in a case would serve no useful purpose (such as because of a change of circumstances, e.g. the voluntary resignation of an administrator whose conduct is the subject of a case) or that they are unable to reach a majority decision, they may decide by majority vote to dismiss the case without a decision.
8. In deciding cases, the arbitrators will rely upon factors including established Wikipedia customs and common practices, policies and guidelines, the reasonable expectations of the parties and the community, governing real-world norms including Wikimedia Foundation mandates, how comparable situations have been addressed by the committee and the community in the past, and the best interests of the project, the parties, and the community.
9. In exceptional cases of communal division or exceptional risk of harm to the project, the Committee may determine a interim means to achieve the aims of communal policies or to curtail dispute in the area, until the community has developed a better consensus. ^[10]
10. Decisions will be presented in clearly written English. The wording and significance of any provision whose meaning is unclear to other arbitrators, the parties, or other interested editors should be clarified upon request.^[23]
11. The arbitrators may discuss and deliberate on cases on their private mailing list, particularly where warranted by privacy or similar factors, but the substantive basis for the final decision should be apparent from the decision itself or from arbitrators' comments on it.

1. When the proposed decision is in final form, an arbitrator will move to close the case. Four net votes in favor of closing the case are required. A grace period of a minimum of twenty-four hours shall be observed between the fourth net vote to close the case and the going into effect of those remedies passed in the case, unless four or more Arbitrators vote to close the case immediately, or if a majority of Arbitrators active on the case have voted to close the case.
2. Remedies and enforcement actions may be appealed to, and are subject to modification by, Jimbo Wales, except where the case involves review of one of Jimbo Wales's own administrator or steward actions.
3. When a case is closed, any immediately applicable remedies shall go into effect. Thereafter, allegations that an editor has violated an Arbitration Committee ruling may be raised (with notice to the affected editor) on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. If necessary, requests for clarification or modification of any decision may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

The Arbitration Policy and Committee are delegated by Jimbo Wales in his role as project leader of English Wikipedia. Changes to the policy should only be made with the approval of Jimbo Wales or of the Committee itself. ^[1]

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration
• Meta:Arbitration Committee

1. The Committee reserves the right to experiment with new forms of page structure for RFAR cases, consistent with the present aims, concepts and approaches.
2. Matters flagged for discussion - process for alternate Arbitrators; case acceptance vote criteria.
3. Doing the role may require identification to WMF, since a user who is not identified may not access the arbcom mailing lists, and will be barred from a disproportionate number of discussions.