Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration

This page documents an Arbitration Committee process on the English Wikipedia. This page is maintained by members of the Arbitration Committee and their Clerks. Editing requires considerable forethought and usually (for major changes) arbitrator agreement.

Arbitration is the final step in Wikipedia's process for dispute resolution. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new Arbitration cases and to review previous decisions, as described in the Arbitration policy. A panel of highly experienced users will consider evidence and reach a decision that is binding on everyone.

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 that are unlike those of other stages of dispute resolution. If you do not understand how Arbitration approaches your dispute, you may experience stress, arguments, and worry.

Some important features of Wikipedia's Arbitration process are:

• Arbitration aims to "break the back" of the dispute - The first time a dispute comes to Arbitration, it may have gone on months or years and may seem impossible and interminable. Many users may be angry and there will often be controversy and many allegations. Arbitrators will aim to clarify the issues among themselves and establish the case's history. They will want to get the case to the point that if it recurs it will be easier to address. Therefore, the first Arbitration of a dispute is almost always the longest and most difficult.
• Arbitration is not a court case - Arbitration is not a legal process with fixed approaches to problems: all actions and general conduct, not merely the direct issue, may be taken into account. A person's general manner, past actions or incidents, and the impressions of them by reasonable people, may all be used to guide the Arbitrators.
• Arbitration is intended to serve the project - 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, Arbitration is more likely to ask if a user can change, or what restrictions would have an effect, rather than who said exactly what in the past.

After considering a Request for Arbitration ("RFAR") and the associated User comments, the Arbitration Committee will vote on whether or not to open a Case. If a case is opened, involved parties and members of the community will have the opportunity to present evidence and comments pertaining to the dispute. After considering the evidence, the Arbitrators will reach a binding decision that includes various remedies, ranging from comparatively minor reprimands to severe sanctions.

Before requesting arbitration

Alternatives

Main page: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

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.
• It is entirely possible that the Arbitration Committee will work on resolving the dispute by slapping sanctions on users who have appeared to cause disruption, possibly including the requester. Be prepared for your own behaviour to receive scrutiny.

Usually, it is expected that other avenues will be attempted first, such as the requests for comment on user conduct (RFC/U) process, mediation, or other serious attempts to resolve the problem. If other steps are not attempted before a request for Arbitration, the requesting User should explain why.

Exceptions

The Committee will generally consider directly accepting some serious cases without previous dispute resolution processes:

• Reviews of emergency actions to remove administrator privileges
• Unusually divisive disputes among administrators
• Matters directly referred to the Arbitration Committee by Jimbo Wales

In some serious cases it may be best to email in private for advice, such as:

• Administrator sockpuppetry
• Sensitive or "drama prone" issues requiring advice on handling
• Issues where privacy is a major concern

The Arbitration Committee and Clerks

The Committee

Main page: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee

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 in greater detail.

In addition to its role in dispute resolution, the Committee determines which editors have access to CheckUser and Oversight permissions, and considers certain matters where exceptional factors such as privacy preclude a public hearing.

Arbitrators are neither Wikimedia Foundation employees or agents, nor Wikipedia executives. They are volunteer users—usually experienced editors and administrators—whom the community of editors at large elects to resolve the most complex or intractable disputes that may arise within the community, and to oversee the few areas where access to non-public information is a prerequisite.

Expertise of the ArbCom

Arbitrators are not subject experts and the Arbitration Committee avoids ruling on content disputes. In practice, they are likely to be very cautious about basing a ruling on the grounds that one side is right in a content dispute. There are minor exceptions to this — in general, the ArbCom has looked unfavorably on people who are using Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy, and people who allege a conspiracy to suppress their point of view. The exact relationship between this and particular minority points of view is subtle. In this context, be very careful in how you present evidence. If you attempt to use the platform to expound your views or if you are uncivil, this could be regarded as evidence against you.

Almost no ArbCom cases have actually required careful attention to content issues to get the necessary result.

The role of Arbitration Committee clerks

Main page: Wikipedia: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 an Arbitration request or help in adding evidence to cases once they have opened. Clerk business is co-ordinated through the Clerks' Noticeboard.

Requesting Arbitration (RFAR)

Types of requests for Arbitration

The Arbitration process is initiated by a Wikipedia user who submits a request for Arbitration. Such requests may be to open a new case or to revisit existing matters with clarifications, amendments, or extensions. Wikipedia's selected Arbitrators may also initiate Motions, which relate to simple cases and decisions within the Arbitration Committee.

Requests for public or private Arbitration

Typically, cases involving ban appeals are heard by email rather than publicly posted, 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 is usually when there are exceptional privacy issues.

Users may refer evidence to the Committee by email in any case. Unless there is good reason, however, it is preferable that evidence is presented on-wiki. If you have doubt about posting any evidence or privacy issue, or have concerns over a public discussion, please ask an arbitrator for advice by email.

To email the Committee, see here.

Your statement

In a request for Arbitration, a User tries to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention as well as the steps already attempted to resolve it. 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 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: if your case is accepted for Arbitration, an evidence page will be created that you can use to provide more detail.

Responding to a RFAR

If you are named as an involved party in a Request for Arbitration, or if you feel you must respond to someone else's Request for Arbitration or comments made by others about a Request for Arbitration, remember that Arbitration cases are not debate pages; they are for the purpose of organizing brief summaries of a dispute, and if accepted, for the presentation of evidence in the dispute.

To respond to another's comment, rather than replying directly to that user in the section of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration thread in which he or she made the comment, add a comment section of your own with:

; Response to statement by [[User:X|X]] : <your comment> ~~~~

Where User:X is the person to whom you are responding. If you comment within another user's section, the committee clerks will more than likely move your comment and refactor it as necessary.

If clerks or arbitrators move or refactor some of your text, please do not automatically revert. Part of the clerks' role is to manage the Arbitration pages correctly. Instead, raise the matter with the clerk separately, or check on the relevant talk page.

How requests are processed

After a Request is made, the active Arbitrators vote on whether to hear the case, electing to accept, reject/decline, recuse, or "other". The clerks record the votes of the Arbitration Committee in the format 0/0/0/0.

"Recuse" means that an Arbitrator has excused him 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, such as comments that are not formal accept/reject votes, which might imply the arbitrator intends to lean for a particular outcome. Arbitrators often leave a comment or "other" vote, and subsequently cast a vote to accept or reject, leaving that comment standing. In such cases the comment remains in comment section, but the tally is updated by the Clerks to reflect the new vote (for example, a comment/"other" superseded by an accept would switch the tally from 0/0/0/1 to 1/0/0/0).

Requested Cases remain on the Reqests for Arbitration page for a minimum of 48 hours after filing, regardless of the Arbitrators' voting. If four net "accept" votes are cast (i.e., four more "accept" than "reject" votes), an Arbitration Case is usually opened within 24 hours. When a case is opened, a notice linking to further information, including links to newly-created "Evidence" and "Workshop" pages, will be posted to each participant's talk page.

Cases that have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days are removed from the Request page.

When a case is accepted

See also: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy

When an Arbitration Case is opened, users 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.

In order to facilitate efficient case processing, the Committee will usually designate one Arbitrator to be the Drafting Arbitrator or Drafter for the case. This Arbitrator will author, in due course, the proposed decision for that case. Other members of the Committee will then vote on the proposals—and, if they wish, propose alternatives or additions to the decision.

The drafter has the same authority as other Arbitrators participating in the case; the position is created simply for easier management of workload.

Evidence

The parties and other interested editors are encouraged to place evidence on the case's Evidence subpage, in the form of diffs demonstrating contested behavior along with explanations and context. Be clear and concise. Generally, presentations should be kept under 500 words and 50 diffs, although some flexibility is tolerated. The parties should be aware that argument is not evidence, and that five well-chosen diffs may speak more eloquently than a 500-word diatribe.

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.

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.

1. 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.
2. 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."
3. 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.
4. 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.

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.

In some complex cases the first remedy may seem deceptively light and in other cases sanctions can be more severe. Arbitrators will try to consider careful use of editing restrictions, for example, a user may be deemed completely incapable of editing one area without dispute but be given a "second chance" in other areas or under certain restrictions. Arbitrators will factor in their experience of how certain remedies impact certain behaviors, and in repeat Arbitrations, the results of a full prior case.

In many cases the Committee may simply tell the involved parties that the conflict must end, and will wait to see if further action is needed, especially in complex cases where borderline decisions could be very divisive. "Bad actors" tend to try and repeat their agendas, and will usually be removed or sanctioned at that point. It is very difficult for even the worst problem users to create problems after arbitration; the minority who return often have a different issue, or need stronger enforcement measures, and this is usually resolved quickly.

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 enjoin the participants temporarily 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.

Guidelines for presenting evidence and arguments

These guidelines are intended to assist Users in their presentation of evidence and arguments before the Committee, and, per the Arbitration Clerks, are based on empirical observation of what arguments have worked in front of the ArbCom, and what have not, as well as discussions with arbitrators about what they find important:

There are two very important things to realize about the Arbitration Committee and its members:

1. They do not have much time, and
2. They care much more about product than process.

Almost everything below is a corollary of one or both of these two lines.

Be concise

Evidence pages quickly become very long. Arbitrators do not have time to read and re-read 100 KB 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 clear and obvious example requiring little explanation and presented with minimal commentary.

Provide context

It is very unlikely that ArbCom members have already read about your dispute in the expectation that Arbitration will be requested. 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.

Provide the context for your evidence: 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 and to be useful to the Arbitrators.

When making statements and arguments before the Committee, explain why the edits you cite are proof of your assertion: e.g., "edit X shows user Y disrupting consensus-building because ABC...".

Use reminders

At any one time there are likely ten to twenty or more active matters in arbitration (including open cases, requests for arbitration, and requests for prior case amendment), and hundreds of closed ones. Individual arbitrators cannot keep close track of all of these.

If you mention to the Committee a User that the ArbCom has sanctioned, they may remember the user, 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.

Avoid arguing against the principles of Wikipedia

The 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.

Avoid asking for content rulings

Since the ArbCom avoids taking positions in content disputes, instead of arguing that somebody is advancing a nutty conspiracy theory with no credibility, make arguments pertaining to concrete and self-explanatory things, such as disruptive conduct or inappropriate actions.

Don't moon the jury

Parties should be on their best behavior while adding evidence or making comments on workshop and talk 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 topical or general bans. Remember that if you are on trial for assault, it is generally not a good idea to start punching witnesses in open court.

Don't depend on rhetorical or discussion skills

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.

Proposed decisions and Closing of cases

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. Arbitrators may vote to Support or Oppose a proposal or may vote Abstain. For the final decision, votes are counted according to a simple majority of the active Arbitrators (for example, if there are 11 active Arbitrators, any proposal that receives 6 or more votes in support is consider passed). A vote of "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, reduces the number of participating Arbitrators with respect to that proposal, and may reduce the majority needed to pass that proposal.

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, so as to avoid delay when additional votes will not change the outcome.

The number of votes in opposition does not normally come into play, except in cases of Conditional voting.

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 as remedies, 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 (e.g., "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,

• 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, 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.

If contradictory proposals cannot be resolved by considering conditional votes, then the clerks will attempt to determine the consensus of the committee by considering votes case in 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.

Closing the case

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.

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. 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 and to the Administrators' noticeboard, and any remedies (blocks, bans, article or editorial restrictions) will take effect at that time.

Case enforcement and after the case

Most cases will result in some form of decision in the form of remedies and enforcement measures that the community can enact. These may be enforced in many ways, with the most common being administrative action.

If the problem behaviors continue after the Case, then enforcement 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 administrative consideration of additional communally-imposed 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 editing other articles on a restricted topic, or gaming the system in other ways.

Users who respond to an Arbitration decision by flagrantly unacceptable behavior (for example ignoring a requirement and trying to evade it using sock-puppetry) may find in extreme cases that the Arbitration requirement is summarily overtaken by an administrator's block or community ban.

User 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 significant track record is required, and recidivism is taken very seriously.

See also

• Administrator enforcement requested – Summary of cases and remedies currently in force
• Arbitration enforcement noticeboard – Any user can request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision
• Case handling – An (unofficial) note of common Committee practices in accepted cases
• Completed requests – summaries and links to all closed arbitration cases
• Past decisions – Some principles from prior cases
• Rejected requests – links to rejected cases (largely incomplete prior to May 2007)