The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.

Contents 1 Policy 1.1 The Arbitration Committee 1.1.1 Duties and responsibilities 1.1.2 Selection and appointment 1.1.3 Conduct 1.1.4 Procedures and roles 1.1.5 Inactivity, resignation, and removal 1.2 Arbitration proceedings 1.2.1 Jurisdiction 1.2.2 Requesting arbitration 1.2.3 Recusal 1.2.4 Forms of hearing 1.2.5 Participation 1.2.6 Evidence 1.2.7 Temporary injunctions 1.2.8 Format and scope of decisions 1.2.9 Voting on decisions 1.2.10 Motions to close or dismiss 1.2.11 Continuing jurisdiction 1.2.12 Appeals of decisions 1.3 Ratification and amendment 2 Supplementary documents 2.1 Committee procedures 2.2 Guide to arbitration 3 Comments

Shortcut: WP:AC/DP

[edit] Policy

[edit] The Arbitration Committee

[edit] Duties and responsibilities

The Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia has the following duties and responsibilities:

1. To act as a binding decision-maker for disputes concerning the conduct of Wikipedia editors;^[1]
2. To consider appeals^[2] from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users;
3. To deal summarily with urgent or emergency matters—for example, blatant abuse of administrator or other privileges, and threatening or malicious conduct—that presents a danger^[3] to the project or its contributors;
4. To deal with issues unsuitable for public discussion because of privacy or similar concerns; and
5. To appoint and remove holders of the CheckUser and Oversight privileges.

[edit] Selection and appointment

Members of the Committee are elected annually by the community, and the appointments announced by Jimbo Wales in accordance with the election results. The format of the elections is decided by the community.

Candidates must (i) meet the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to nonpublic data, and (ii) disclose in their election statements all their prior and alternate accounts.^[4][5]

The Committee may call interim elections, in a comparable format to that of the regular annual elections, if it determines that arbitrator resignations or inactivity have created an immediate need for additional arbitrators.

[edit] Conduct

Arbitrators must act with integrity and good faith at all times to retain the trust of the community and maintain the high standards expected of them. They must preserve the confidentiality of (i) private correspondence sent to the Committee and (ii) the Committee's internal discussions and deliberations.^[6][7]

Arbitrators are required to respond fully and expediently to questions put by the Committee and the community about conduct which appears to conflict with their trusted roles.^[8]

[edit] Procedures and roles

The Committee may modify its internal procedures, form subcommittees, or designate individual arbitrators for particular tasks or roles. Where appropriate, the Committee will invite community comment on intended changes prior to implementing them.

^[9]

The Committee will maintain a panel of clerks to assist with the smooth running of its functions. The clerks' responsibilities include implementing procedures and enforcing standards of conduct in arbitration proceedings.^[10]

[edit] Inactivity, resignation, and removal

Arbitrators are expected to participate fully in the Committee's activities and deliberations. Arbitrators who are, or who are likely to become, inactive for a period of time are expected to advise the Committee of the reason and likely duration of their inactivity. Arbitrators who are only intermittently active, or who are inactive for an extended period, may be asked by the Committee to remain inactive until the situation is resolved.

Arbitrators may take a leave of absence at any time by informing the Committee in writing.

Arbitrators who engage in conduct grossly or repeatedly unbecoming to their position may be removed from office by the Committee.

[edit] Arbitration proceedings

[edit] Jurisdiction

The Committee has jurisdiction over all user conduct disputes involving the English Wikipedia, including all disputes regarding the use of special privileges accorded to certain users.

The Committee has no jurisdiction over (i) official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation and (ii) Wikimedia projects other than the English Wikipedia.

[edit] Requesting arbitration

Requests for arbitration must be presented in the form prescribed by the Committee. The Committee accepts or declines to accept any matter at its sole discretion though it will take into account, but not be bound by, the views of the parties to the request and other interested users.

[edit] Recusal

Arbitrators must recuse in any case in which they have a conflict of interest.^[11] Typically, grounds for recusal include prior involvement in the substance of the dispute or non-trivial personal interaction with one of the parties.^[12] Actions in an arbitrator's official capacity, such as ruling on a prior case involving a party, are not adequate grounds for recusal.^[13]

An arbitrator may recuse from any case, or from aspects of any case, at any time prior to voting, with or without giving a reason.

Any user who believes that an arbitrator should recuse must first notify the arbitrator of the request for recusal and provide a rationale. Should the arbitrator fail to respond, or fail to recuse, the user may refer the request to the Committee for a ruling. Requests for recusal after a case has entered the voting stage will not be granted, except in extraordinary circumstances.

[edit] Forms of hearing

Standard hearings: By default, hearings of cases are public and follow the procedures outlined on the arbitration request pages.

Summary hearings: 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 motion to 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, non-recused arbitrators.

Private hearings: In exceptional circumstances, typically where the case involves significant privacy, harassment or legal matters, the Committee may, by majority vote of active, non-recused, arbitrators, require that the case be heard off-wiki in private. Parties to such cases will be notified that the case is to be heard in private and be given comparable opportunities to those in a standard hearing to respond to allegations about them before a determination is made.

[edit] Participation

Cases are decided by the full Committee rather than by panels or subcommittees. All active non-recused arbitrators may participate in each case. An arbitrator whose term expires while a case is pending may remain active on that case until its conclusion. Newly appointed arbitrators may become active on any or all current or pending cases with effect from the date on which they take office.

Statements may be added to the case pages by arbitrators, parties, and interested editors; and are expected to comply with length restrictions imposed by the Committee. Editors are required to act reasonably and with decorum on arbitration case pages, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so.

Editors named as parties to an arbitration case and given due notice of the case are expected to participate in the proceeding. Any editor named as a party, or otherwise under scrutiny during the course of a case, will be notified of this by the Committee or its Clerks, and will be given a minimum of seven days to respond, measured from the date the case opened or the date on which they are notified, whichever is the later.

If a notified party fails to respond within a reasonable time of being notified, or explicitly refuses to participate in the case, the Committee is authorised to rule on that party's conduct in the absence of that party's participation.^[14]

If a party to a case leaves Wikipedia during the proceedings, the Committee may, at its discretion: (i) dismiss the case either in its entirety or only insofar as that party is concerned; (ii) suspend the case^[15] until the party returns; or (iii) continue the case regardless.

If an administrator who is a party to a case resigns the sysop permission during the currency of a case,^[16][17] they are not entitled to reinstatement by simple request to a bureaucrat but are, unless otherwise directed by the Committee, required to submit a new request for adminship.^[18][19][20]

[edit] Evidence

In all proceedings, admissible evidence includes: (i) all Wikipedia edits and log entries (including deleted or otherwise hidden edits and log entries; (ii) where appropriate, edits and log entries from projects other than the English Wikipedia; and (iii) posts to official mailing lists. Evidence from official mediation is only admissible with the express prior written consent of the Mediation Committee.

Evidence from outside sources (including, but not limited to, other websites, forums, chat rooms, or personal correspondence) is only admissible in exceptional circumstances (for example, serious external harassment or conspiracy to violate Wikipedia policy)^[21]. Furthermore, if the evidence from outside sources was not intended for wide publication it may only be posted on-wiki with the express prior consent of all the contributing correspondents and recipients.

Evidence may be submitted privately by email to the Committee's mailing list but the Committee will normally expect evidence to be posted publicly unless there are compelling reasons for private submission. The Committee will make every effort to circulate privately submitted evidence to all parties, except when doing so would result in undue risk of harassment or retaliation against the editors providing that evidence.

[edit] Temporary injunctions

At any time between the opening of a case and its closure, the arbitrators may issue temporary injunctions, restricting the conduct of the parties for the duration of the case, by a net vote of four arbitrators in support, or an absolute majority of the arbitrators active in the case, whichever is lower.^[22]

[edit] Format and scope of decisions

Decisions will be made in the established format of: (i) "Principles" (general statements of policy); (ii) "Findings of Fact" (findings specific to the case); (iii) "Remedies" (binding rulings about the parties' future conduct) and (iv) "Enforcement provisions".

Decisions will be presented in clear standard English. Where the meaning of any provision is unclear to other arbitrators, the parties, or other interested editors, it will be clarified upon request.

The arbitration process is not a vehicle to create new policy. The Committee's decisions can interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognize and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy may be enforced^[23]. No decision will mandate the precise content of any article.

Previous Arbitration Committee decisions are useful and informative but are not binding on future Committee proceedings.

[edit] Voting on decisions

For standard hearings, proposed decisions will be posted and voted on on-wiki, listed under the case's Principles", "Findings of Fact", "Remedies" and "Enforcement" sections, with each substantive clause being voted on separately. Where several substantive items have been combined in a single clause, they may at the request of any arbitrator be split into separate clauses for voting. A clause is only adopted as part of the final decision when it has received a majority vote of active non-recused arbitrators.

[edit] Motions to close or dismiss

If the Committee determines at any time that (i) issuing a formal decision in a case would serve no useful purpose; (ii) it is unable to reach a majority decision; or (iii) a case may best be resolved by a single motion rather than a full decision; it may adopt a motion by a majority vote of active non-recused arbitrators to dismiss or otherwise resolve the case.

When a normal proposed decision is in final form, an arbitrator will move to close the case. The motion requires the lower of (i) four net votes in support, or (ii) an absolute majority of arbitrators active in the case; to be adopted.

[edit] Continuing jurisdiction

Should the remedies enacted in a case fail to resolve the dispute, the Committee may enact additional remedies by summary motion on the request of any party to the case, or may open a review case to review developments since the original case was closed.

[edit] Appeals of decisions

Remedies and enforcement actions by the Arbitration Committee 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 actions.

A party or other editor affected by remedies in a given case may request reconsideration or amendment of the ruling in light of subsequent developments. The Committee may require a minimum time to have elapsed since the enactment of the ruling, or since any prior request for reconsideration by that user, before hearing such a request.

[edit] Ratification and amendment

This policy will undergo formal ratification through a community referendum, whose format will be decided by the community. ^[24] The policy will enter into force once it receives majority support in such a referendum, with no less than one hundred editors voting in favor of adopting it. Until this policy is ratified, the existing Arbitration Policy will remain in effect.

Amendments to this policy will undergo an identical ratification process. Proposed amendments may be submitted for ratification only after being approved by a majority vote of the Committee, or having been requested by a petition signed by no less than one hundred editors in good standing.^[25]

[edit] Supplementary documents

[edit] Committee procedures

Procedure for case opening:

A request will be considered accepted if it meets all of the following criteria:

• The request must have four net votes to accept, or have an absolute majority of active, unrecused arbitrators voting to accept;
• The request must have received its first instance of four net votes to accept more than 24 hours ago; and
• The request must have been filed more than 48 hours ago (this waiting period may be waived by the Committee where there is a clear need to open the case immediately).

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.

When a request for arbitration is accepted, a Clerk will create standard "evidence", "workshop", and "proposed decision" pages. In the course of doing so, the Committee or the Clerk will designate the case with an appropriate casename. This name is used for the purposes of identification only^[26] and has no substantive significance.

Once a case has been opened, the Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to serve as the lead drafters for the case. These arbitrators will serve as a designated point of contact for all matters regarding that case.

Procedure for submission of evidence:

Evidence submissions will normally be restricted to 500 words and 50 diff links^[27]. Editors wishing to submit additional evidence should request the approval of the drafting arbitrator(s). Unapproved evidence in excess of the limit will be removed by the clerks.

Procedure for case drafting:

Drafting of case provisions on the workshop will normally be restricted to arbitrators. Editors wishing to draft provisions should request the approval of the drafting arbitrator(s). Unapproved drafts will be removed by the clerks.

Procedure for case voting:

For any given case, an arbitrator is considered either active or inactive. The presumption is that each arbitrator is active on each case unless he or she states otherwise. An inactive arbitrator may become active on a case by stating that he or she will be active on the case or by voting on any issue in the case. An active arbitrator may become inactive by so stating, in which case any votes already cast by that arbitrator on the proposed decision will be considered withdrawn.

Procedure for case closing:

A grace period of a minimum of twenty-four hours will be observed between the fourth net vote to close the case and the implementation of the remedies passed in the case, unless four or more arbitrators vote to close the case immediately, or an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators vote to close the case.

[edit] Guide to arbitration

The Committee will normally require that editors show they have exhausted the previous steps in the dispute resolution process before proceeding to arbitration. The Committee will normally hear a case despite the absence of prior dispute resolution only where the case involves an unusually divisive dispute among administrators, where there has already been extensive discussion with wide community participation, or where there is a specific reason to believe that engaging the earlier steps of the dispute resolution process would not be productive.

[edit] Comments

1. ^ Prefer: "To act as a final binding decision-maker for serious disputes which the community has otherwise failed to resolve". Reason(s): 1/ Wary of removing too much discretion from current norms or accidentally leaving a void in future that no group of editors can resolve. 2/ Wary of limiting this too much even compared to past decisions. For example past decisions have also involved reconciling conflicting policies, suggesting a best practice following dispute in a project area, or meta-matters such as WikiProjects and content tags, which could be argued by some to be not directly within "editor conduct", 3/ "Final" matters and isn't the same as "binding". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
2. ^ Prefer: "final" appeals... Reason(s): Not every appeal. Final appeals only. Implies all decisions appealed to AC which isn't the case - wherever possible they should not be an AC matter unless they have already asked and been rejected in usual and reasonable appeals to the blocking admin, community, etc. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
3. ^ Prefer: "risk of serious disruption or harm". Reason(s): "Danger" is a strong word, hence a very limiting one. A lot of issues this would be expected to cover are not arguably "a danger" except through an unreasonably broad reading of the word. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
4. ^ Prefer: "...other than if agreed by the Committee or Jimmy Wales for exceptionally good cause" Reason(s): 1/ A user who has for example, changed an account to escape serious harassment or threats in the past and has over time established a well reputed new account should not thereby be effectively barred from seeking the trust of the community at ArbCom election. We have had one case of a very capable and serious admin who was forced to change account due to real-world threats. 2/ Added "or Jimmy Wales" since they may wish to ask Jimmy directly if he considers it OK to withhold their prior account. I would expect that such permission would never be given lightly, given communal expectations, nor without exceeding good cause. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
5. ^ Does disclosure apply also to prior or occasional editing as an IP? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:37, July 2, 2009 (UTC)
6. ^ Could this specify that confidentiality of correspondence must be maintained "both during their service and after leaving the committee"? ~~~~
7. ^ Add: "This trust is obligatory on each arbitrator both during their term of service and thereafter, regardless of any issues, or any involvement (or otherwise) in the community." Reason(s): Per previous comment. Iron-clad, as much as trust and expectations reasonably can be. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
8. ^ Prefer: "...with the word or spirit of this policy or the expectations of their roles" (or some such). Reason(s): "Their trusted roles" appears to be quite narrow. Anything whereby an arb's conduct causes concern due to risk of conflict with the word or spirit of these expectations, should be potentially covered. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
9. ^ Add: "The Arbitration Committee may specify the enforcement and appeal measures applying to its decisions and to processes it operates." Reason(s): See talk page. Affirms Arbcom's right to say how its own processes should be enforced, such as "may only be overturned by <whatever>" or "may be appealed by <specific route>". This has frequently been both used and needed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
10. ^ Prefer: "on pages related to the Arbitration Committee and its processes". Reason(s): "in arbitration proceedings" effectively prevents clerks from acting on pages within the arbitration section that aren't specifically "proceedings". For example disputes that spill over onto AC/N, WT:RFAR and other pages within Arbcom's processes. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
11. ^ Prefer: "Arbitrators' ability to hear cases neutrally is paramount. Arbitrators must recuse in any case in which they have a significant conflict of interest, such that his or her impartiality in the case might reasonably be doubted by uninvolved users.". Reason(s): 1/ explicitly emphasizes their fundamental duty of neutrality - which is missing - and 2/ more accurate. The appropriate measure for recusal is whether a neutral, uninvolved, editor familiar with the Wikipedia Community's internal operations and norms who read the case, would be likely to feel a reasonable doubt as to the neutrality of a user helping decide the case.FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
12. ^ Prefer: Delete this sentence ("typically..."), or else change to "... or non-trivial personal interaction as to raise significant doubts as to their neutrality.". Reason(s): "Non-trivial personal interaction" is way too restrictive. It's also eminently wonderful grounds for wikilawyering. Traditionally this has been left to an individual arb to assess, if needed then reviewed by the Committee in an advisory capacity. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
13. ^ Does "in an official capacity" also cover admin actions (as opposed to arb involvement), outside views, and other actions not speaking to personal involvement? This term caused endless issues when applied to Jimbo and "was this or was this not in his official capacity", as it was never actually defined. Clarify and preferably avoid in favor of a better wording. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
14. ^ Prefer: "A notified party is responsible for responding within a reasonable time of being notified, and ensuring any material that would help them is promptly made available to the Committee. Should a user fail to do so, a decision may be made in their absence or based on such evidence as is available, which will become binding upon formal case closure.". Reason(s): 1/ Clumsy wording, 2/ Leaves an aspect "hanging in the air" or needing explicit saying - we want the user to appreciate they cannot ignore the case, then come back 2 weeks later claiming heatedly this was all "unfair process" and lacking validity. Optional wording: either "promptly" or "in a timely manner". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
15. ^ Add: "or any part of it". Reason(s): fix loophole. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
16. ^ Perhaps say "immediately before or during the case" – NuclearWarfare (talk) 23:27 25 June 2009
17. ^ Prefer: "resigns a permission subsequent to the arbitration request, or when such a request is reasonably foreseeable". Reason(s): Fix both the loophole pointed out by NuclearWarfare and 2 related loopholes ("any permission" not just sysop, and "when reasonably foreseeable" not just "immediately before"). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
18. ^ Perhaps expand this to cover bureaucrats as well? (I assume that no CU/OS can automatically regain their access). – NuclearWarfare (talk) 23:27 25 June 2009
19. ^ If a user in possession of special permission or access (Administrator, Bureaucrat, Oversight, Checkuser, Bot operator, Abuse filter editor, etc.) resigns such permission(s) during the currency of a case, they are not entitled to reinstatement by simple request to a bureaucrat or steward but are, unless otherwise directed by the Committee, required to submit to the standard community process for obtaining such permissions.
20. ^ "Currency" is esoteric but acceptable, the point is someone who resigns as a result of a dispute that is headed to or at RFAR. "Immediately before" does not necessarily encompass this. Suppose the complaint involves misuse that occurred weeks or months before and is only now making its way through the dispute resolution process to RFAR?
21. ^ Add: "serious disruption". Reason(s): Concerned that a user can state their intentions (self pub) in a manner that is verifiably their own writing (eg their well known website or blog) and yet we can't cite it as evidence they were disruptive. Commonsense and "product over process", there should be some leeway for serious disruption evidence to be acknowledged, otherwise I foresee a malevolent user publishing on their blog that they love trolling and edit warring and discussing their activities with glee - then proceeding to deadpan 'lawyer at RFAR that by our own arbitration policy it's completely inadmissible and there is no on-wiki evidence of any of it. Some means to prevent this abuse would be sensible. One possible solution would be to also allow as admissible against a party, that same party's reasonably verifiable self published writings and posts elsewhere. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
22. ^ Prefer: "At any time between the opening of a case and its closure, the arbitrators may issue temporary injunctions restricting the conduct of the parties (or users generally) for the duration of the case. Such temporary injunctions do not imply any decision; rather they are intended to reduce likely contentious conduct while the case is in progress.". Reason(s): 1/ often injunctions restrict the entire community, such as "While the case is open, no user is to move a page related to topic X, or delete a page related to topic Y, or run an automated process which does Z". Typically affects naming or layout disputes etc. So it isn't just "parties". 2/ Should explain that an injunction is about preventing escalation and allowing calm, and 3/ that it does not imply a pre-judgement on the dispute. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
23. ^ Propose to add: within the scope of the case. Elaborated on talk page, to sum up, decisions should be case-specific. Cenarium (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
24. ^ Add: "At the same time any user submitted amendment proposals that have obtained the support of over one hundred editors and the approval of the Arbitration Committee will be presented on a "proposed amendments" page to be considered for ratification". Reason(s): It is foreseeable that after the initial "flurry" no amendment will be considered by the community for a long time. As it stands the sole decision will be on the version presented by the committee. A possible amendment that many users like but which is not favored by the committee therefore is in an invidious position - it cannot gain entry to the draft, nor is it likely to be considered on its own merits for a long time after if presented separately. I therefore suggest that any user who feels they have an important amendment that isn't in the final draft, and gains 100+ !votes and AC approval in support of it (as required for a proposed amendment), should have the opportunity to present it at the same time to allow the community to consider it too. Not many proposals will gain that level of support, but I think it's important the option is there. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
25. ^ Add: "The Arbitration Committee may post its view on a communally submitted proposal to be taken into account during the process". Reason(s): As it stands, the community may not be aware of the full implications as seen by the Committee during !voting and there is no opening for the Committee to point out what it considers serious flaws or concerns if they exist. Without "deciding the matter", the Committee should be able to say "this is our view on this idea" (if any) for others to take into account as they make their decision. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
26. ^ Add: ", may change prior to closing,". Reason(s): This often happens after "the course of opening the case", or even at case closure. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
27. ^ Add: " except where complex evidence of sock-puppetry is integral to the case". Reason(s): The major (and so far as I can think, sole) common exception where evidence limits aren't easily applicable, are cases where clever sock-puppetry is alleged. Most behaviors can be shown in a few words or cites and 3-4 diffs. Proving 2 editors are probably socks can draw on many diffs and examples - think of CHL's evidence at "Mantanmoreland" or mine (shown privately) for Poetlister. This is the one specific circumstance where I think it's so common to need much more space and many more diffs, that we would do well to say so. Yes it could be an "arbitrator request" each time, but a user prepared to prove such activity will usually know what they are talking about and in my experience usually has presented it succinctly. (Alternative handling: add an exception in "Arbitration Guide" that the statement length may be waived by an arb, "especially when complex evidence is needed to prove...") FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)