 | This page documents the internal rules and procedures of theArbitration Committee. It should not be edited without the Committee's authorization. |
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
| Track related changes |
Previous text |
|---|
Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) members are provided with theCheckUser andsuppression tools in order to carry out their responsibilities. Historically, community appointees to the AUSC were discouraged from routine or regular use of either tool. Since appropriate procedures exist for excluding arbitrator or community AUSC members from cases in which they may be involved, there is not a compelling reason to continue to prohibit use of the CheckUser or suppression tools. As such, members of the AUSC are explicitly permitted to use their advanced permissions for non-AUSC-related actions as allowed by the appropriate policies surrounding each permission, as members of thefunctionaries team. This is without regard to the presence of a backlog or time-sensitive situation. |
Access toCheckUser andOversight permissions is given sparingly. The permissions reflect the high trust placed in the holder. They are not granted in perpetuity and holders are expected to use them regularly for the benefit of the project.
Accordingly, the minimum activity level for each tool (based on the preceding three months' activity) shall be five logged actions. Consideration will be given for activity and actions not publicly logged, such as responding to requests on the CheckUser or OversightVRTS queues; participation on list discussions; activity atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations; responding toaccount creation requests; and responding to CheckUser or Oversight requests on administrative noticeboards,UTRS queue, and user talk pages. These activity requirements do not apply to: (a) sitting members of theArbitration Committee; (b) holders using the permissions for audit purposes; or (c) holders who have temporarily relinquished access, including CheckUsers or Oversighters who accept appointment to theOmbuds Commission.[1]
Holders of the permissions are also expected to:
Holders who do not comply with the activity and expectation requirements – or who mark their accounts "semi-retired", "retired", or "inactive", or who announce their effective retirement by other means – may have their permissions removed by the Arbitration Committee. Prior to removal of access, two attempts will be made to contact the holder using the email address they provided to the Committee.
Permissions will usually be reinstated on the following bases:
Requests for reinstatement for any other reason will be considered on a case by case basis.
Note thatStewards andWikimedia Foundation staff granted CheckUser and Oversight permissions by the WMF are outside of the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee.
Previous text |
|---|
A candidate for the Audit Subcommittee will be appointed if:
In the event of there being more candidates meeting this standard than there are vacancies, candidates will be ranked by percentage of support. If this still results in a tie for the last available place(s), the number of support votes will be used to break the tie. If this does not break the tie, a runoff election will be held. The fourth ranked candidate passing criteria (1) and (2) will remain an alternate, to be appointed if one of the appointed candidates retires before the end of his/her term. |
The procedure for handling complaints related to CheckUser or Oversight use is as follows:
An arbitrator's service as an auditor is part of their official service as an arbitrator, and therefore shall not constitute grounds for recusal in a subsequent matter involving the complainant or the subject of the complaint.
When an account with advanced permissions appears to be harming the project, the Committee may authorize expedient removal of these permissions via the procedures below. If the account in question has multiple sets of advanced permissions, removal will generally apply to all of them.
The use of these procedures by the Committee is not intended to constrain the authority of the Wikimedia Stewards to undertake emergency removal of permissions on their own discretion, pursuant to the relevant policies governing Steward actions.
Level I procedures may be used if (a) an account appears to be obviously compromised, or is intentionally and actively using advanced permissions to cause harm in a rapid or apparently planned fashion, or (b) multiple accounts are actively wheel-warring.
The procedure for removal of permissions is as follows:
Level II procedures may be used if (a) the account's behavior is inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated advanced permissions, and (b) no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming.
The procedure for removal of permissions is as follows:
Removal is protective, intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations take place, and the advanced permissions will normally be reinstated if a satisfactory explanation is provided or the issues are satisfactorily resolved. If the editor in question requests it, or if the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances.
In cases where an administrator account was compromised, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions. Factors used to make this determination include: whether the administrator used a strong password on both their Wikipedia account and associated email account; whether the administrator had reused passwords across Wikipedia or the associated email account and other systems; and how the account was compromised.
If the Committee determines the administrator failed to secure their account adequately, the administrator will not be resysopped automatically. Unless otherwise provided by the committee, the administrator may regain their administrative permissions through a successfulrequest for adminship.
To avoid any potential conflicts of interest, current arbitrators may not serve as members of either theOmbuds Commission or theWMF Case Review Committee while serving as arbitrators.
Arbitrators-elect must sign theconfidentiality agreement for nonpublic information and any other non-disclosure agreements required for access to privileged communications before assuming office. All arbitrators are:
At the end of their term, outgoing arbitrators will:
The Committee usually expects editors to have exhausted theprevious steps in the dispute resolution process before proceeding to arbitration. Exceptions include cases:
A case is eligible to be opened when it meets all of the following criteria:
A proceeding may be opened earlier, waiving provisions 2 and 3 above, if a majority of arbitrators support fast-track opening in their acceptance votes.
Once a case has been accepted, the Arbitration Committee will instruct the clerks on the name, structure, and timetable for a case so they may create the applicable pages. The name is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to be drafting arbitrator(s) for the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as a designated point of contact for any matters arising.
The standard structure of a case will include the following phases and timetable:
The timetable and structure of the case may be adjusted (e.g. a phase may be extended, closed early, added or removed) by the initiative of the Committee, at the discretion of the drafting arbitrator(s) during the case. Drafting arbitrator(s) shall also have broad authority to set case-specific rules regarding the running of the phases (e.g. enforce threaded discussions, set a word limit for participants in the workshop phase) to enforce the expectation of behavior during a case. Parties to the case may also petition for changes to the timetable and structure for a case.
Editors named as parties to an arbitration case, and duly notified of it, are expected to participate in the proceeding. Any editor named as a party to a case, or whose conduct otherwise comes under scrutiny during the course of a case, will be notified of this by the Committee or its clerks, and, except in exceptional circumstances, will be given a minimum of seven days to respond, calculated from the date the case opened or the date on which they are notified, whichever is later.
If a party fails to respond within a reasonable time of being notified, or explicitly refuses to participate in the case, or leaves Wikipedia just before or 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; (iii) continue the case regardless; or (iv) close the case by motion.
If an administrator who is a party to a case resigns their permissions just before or during the case affecting them, they are not entitled to reinstatement under standard resysopping procedures, but are required, unless otherwise directed by the Committee, to submit a new request for adminship.
Submissions of evidence are expected to be succinct and to the point. By default, submissions are limited to about 1000 words and about 100 difference links for named parties, and to about 500 words and about 50 difference links 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.
Submissions must be posted on the case /Evidence pages; submission of evidence via sub-pages in userspace is prohibited. Unapproved over-length submissions, and submissions of inappropriate material and/or links, may be removed, refactored, or redacted at the discretion of the clerks and/or the Committee.
For standard hearings, decisions are posted in the form of "Principles", "Findings of Fact", "Remedies" and "Enforcement".
Principles highlight key provisions of policy, procedure, or community practice which are relevant to the dispute under consideration; and, where appropriate, include the Committee's interpretation of such provisions in the context of the dispute.
Findings of fact summarize the key elements of the parties' conduct in the dispute under consideration. Difference links 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 consideration. Remedies may include both enforceable provisions (such as edit restrictions or bans) and non-enforceable provisions (such as cautions, reminders, or admonitions), 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 forarbitration enforcement, describing the procedure to be followed in the event that an editor subject to a remedy violates the terms of that remedy. Enforcement provisions may be omitted in decisions that contain no independently enforceable remedies.
Proposed decisions will be posted with a separate vote for each provision. Where several substantive matters are combined in a single provision, they will be split into separate provisions for voting at the request of any arbitrator.
The final decision will consist of all proposed provisions which were passed by an absolute majority.
Once voting on a proposed decision appears to have ended, an arbitrator will move to close the case. To be adopted, a motion to close requires the support of the lesser of (i) four net votes or (ii) an absolute majority.
A final consideration period of at least 24 hours will usually elapse between the casting of the fourth net vote to close the case and the implementation of any remedies. However, closure may be fast-tracked if (i) all clauses pass unanimously or (ii) there is an absolute majority vote in the motion to do so.
If, at any time, the Committee determines by an absolute majority that (i) issuing a formal decision serves no useful purpose; (ii) a majority decision is not achievable; or (iii) a case may best be resolved by a single motion rather than a full decision; it may close, dismiss or otherwise resolve the case by motion.
An injunction is considered to have passed when it is supported by at leastfour net votes. 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.
If the filing party of a request for an arbitration case withdraws said request, the request may be removed after 24 hours if:
In all other circumstances, the request shall remain open until 24 hours after the above circumstances apply, or until the case can be accepted or declined through the procedures outlined in"Opening of proceedings".
When used in arbitration motions or remedies, the words below should be considered to have the following order of severity:
Arbitrators are presumed active unless they are on a wikibreak, have not participated in arbitration within the past week, or have informed the Committee of their absence. An inactive arbitrator may become active by voting on any aspect of a proceeding. An active arbitrator may become inactive by so stating, in which case their votes will be struck through and discounted.
Any arbitrator who has not given prior notice of absence and who fails to post to the usual venues for seven consecutive days is deemed inactive in all matters with, where practical, retrospective effect to the date of the last known post.
Arbitrator votes are calculated on the following basis:
The following expressions are used, with the following meanings:
Where an arbitrator does not vote on a proposal that requires anabsolute majority, the process below may be followed.
A vote will not be closed as successful if thetotal number of arbitrators voting on it is less than anabsolute majority of the Committee.
The application of this clause is not automatic, and arbitrators should use their best judgement when deciding whether or not to apply it. Factors that should be considered include levels of communication, statements around voting in the immediate future, as well as the nature and count of the votes.
Note that this process cannot be applied tothe process that governs the removal of an arbitrator.
The Arbitration Committee will, for the time being, hear appeals from editors who are (a) blocked for reasons that are unsuitable for public discussion, or (b) blocked or banned by Arbitration and Arbitration Enforcement decisions. Examples of reasons that are unsuitable for public discussion include blocks (i) marked as anOversight block, or (ii) based on CheckUser evidence, and where there exists disagreement between checkusers as to the interpretation of the technical evidence. It is expected that blocks marked as aCheckUser block are by default appealed on-wiki; however, the Arbitration Committee may hear appeals of such blocks if there are compelling reasons to hear an appeal in private.
An editor who is indefinitely topic-banned or otherwise restricted from editing in a topic area under an Arbitration Committee decision may request an amendment to lift or modify the restriction after an appropriate time period has elapsed. A reasonable minimum time period for such a request will ordinarily be six months, unless the decision provides for a different time or the Committee subsequently determines otherwise. In considering such a request, the Committee will give significant weight to, among other factors, whether the editor in question has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project.
If an editor is subject to any sort of Arbitration Committee parole or restriction, and wishes to start a new account or to change their username with a suppressed redirect from the old name, they must notify the Committee of this before they proceed with editing under said new account/name. Failure to disclose this, if discovered, is grounds for a ban from the project.
All sanctions and page restrictions, except page protections, must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction atWikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Page protections must clearly note in the protection reason that the protection action is an arbitration enforcement action and link to the applicable contentious topic page (e.g.,WP:CT/BLP), which will cause the action to be automatically logged atWikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections.
To be valid, sanctions must be clearly and unambiguously labelled as an arbitration enforcement action (such as with "arbitration enforcement", "arb enforcement", "AE" or "WP:AE" in theWikipedia log entry or the edit summary). If a sanction has been logged as an arbitration enforcement action but has not been clearly labelled as an arbitration enforcement action any uninvolved administrator may amend the sanction (for example, a null edit or reblocking with the same settings) on behalf of the original administrator. Labelling a sanction which has been logged does not make the administrator who added the label the "enforcing administrator" unless there is confusion as to who intended the sanction be arbitration enforcement.
A central log of all page restrictions and sanctions (including blocks, bans, page protections or other restrictions) placed as arbitration enforcement (including contentious topic restrictions) is to be maintained by the Committee and its clerks atWikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log andWikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections.
Enforcing administrators areaccountable and must explain their enforcement actions; and they must not beinvolved. Prior routine enforcement interactions, prior administrator participation in enforcement discussions, or when an otherwise uninvolved administrator refers a matter to AE to elicit the opinion of other administrators or refers a matter to the committee at ARCA, do not constitute or create involvement.
Administrators may not adjudicate their own actions at any appeal. However, they are encouraged to provide statements and comments to assist in reaching a determination.
Enforcing administrators are expected to exercise good judgment by responding flexibly and proportionately when they intervene. Except for the cases when the Arbitration Committee has predetermined the set of escalating sanctions to be imposed for violations of a final decision, the severity of the sanction imposed should be commensurate with all circumstances of the case at hand, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question. When dealing with first or isolated instances of borderline misconduct, informal advice may be more effective in the long term than a sanction. Conversely, editors engaging in egregious or sustained misconduct should be dealt with robustly.
Administrators do not need explicit consensus to enforce arbitration decisions and can always act unilaterally. However, when the case is not clear-cut they are encouraged, before acting, to seek input from their colleagues at arbitration enforcement.
When a consensus of uninvolved administrators is emerging in a discussion, administrators willing to overrule their colleagues should act with caution and must explain their reasons on request.
When no actual violation occurred, or the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate, administrators may also close a report with no action; if appropriate, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches.
Administrators wishing to dismiss an enforcement request should act cautiously and be especially mindful that their actions do not give the impression that they are second-guessing the Arbitration Committee or obstructing the enforcement of their decisions.
Dismissed requests may not be reopened. However, any interested users may, after discussion with the administrator in question, appeal the dismissal to the Arbitration Committee at "ARCA". Petitioners who forum shop by resubmitting denied enforcement requests without good reason may find themselves cautioned or sanctioned in return.
The following standard enforcement provision shall be incorporated into all cases which include an enforceable remedy but which do not include case-specific enforcement provisions passed by the Committee:
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
wikimedia.org).No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.
Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.
Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to ascontentious topics (abbreviatedCT). These arespecially designated topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee.[a] Not all topics that are controversial have been designated as contentious topics – this procedure applies only to those topics designated by the Arbitration Committee (list). When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have additional authority to reduce disruption to the project.
Editing a contentious topic
Within contentious topics, you must editcarefully andconstructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
You shoulderr on the side of caution if you are unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations.
Within contentious topics, administrators have the ability to seteditor restrictions (restrictions on editing by particular editors) andpage restrictions (special rules on how particular pages can be edited). Some of these abilities may be exercised by a single administrator, while others require a consensus of administrators. All editor and page restrictions may be appealed.
Administrators are authorized to impose contentious topic restrictions in contentious topic areas. Those contentious topic restrictions take the form ofeditor restrictions andpage restrictions.
Editor restrictions prohibit a specific editor from making edits described in the restriction and may be imposed on editors who do not follow the expectations listed in§ Editing a contentious topic in a contentious topic. Page restrictions prohibit all editors on a particular page from making edits described in the restriction and may be imposed to minimize disruption in a contentious topic.
Unless otherwise specified, contentious topics arebroadly construed; this contentious topics procedure applies to allpages broadly related to a topic, as well asparts of other pages that are related to the topic.[b]
Single administrators may only impose restrictions in thestandard set of contentious topic restrictions. A rough consensus of administrators at thearbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any restriction from the standard set and any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.
The following editor restrictions constitute the standard set of editor restrictions which may be imposed by a single uninvolved administrator:
The following page restrictions constitute the standard set of page restrictions which may be imposed by a single uninvolved administrator:
Administrators may warn editors for conduct that falls short of theexpectations in a contentious topic. Administrators may choose tolog warnings in thearbitration enforcement log. Warnings that are logged in the arbitration enforcement log may be appealed like other editor restrictions. An editor may be warned even if the editor was not previouslyaware that their editing occurred in a contentious topic.
Contentious topic restrictions may be imposed for any fixed length of time, or for an indefinite period.
However, one year after being imposed (or lastrenewed, if applicable), contentious topic restrictions which were imposed by a single administrator may be amended or revoked without going through theappeals and amendments process in the same way as an ordinary administrator action.
Additionally, sitewide blocks become ordinary administrator actions one year after imposition, whether or not imposed by a consensus of administrators at AE.
An administrator who imposes an editor restriction must provide a notice on the restricted editor's talk page specifying the reason for the restriction and informing the restricted editor of theappeal process.
An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add aneditnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or aderived topic-specific template), and should generally add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.
If an uninvolved administrator (including the original enforcing administrator) decides that a page restriction is still necessary after one year, the administrator may renew the restriction by re-imposing it under this procedure and noting the CTOP invoked in the protection reason. The administrator renewing a page restriction then becomes the enforcing administrator. Page protections must clearly note in the protection reason that the protection action is an arbitration enforcement action and link to the applicable contentious topic page (e.g.,WP:CT/BLP), which will cause the action to be automatically logged atWikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections. This does not apply to page restrictions imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Contentious topic restrictions, excepting page protections, must be recorded in the arbitration enforcement log by the administrator who takes the action.[f] Page protections must clearly note in the protection reason that the protection action is an arbitration enforcement action and link to the applicable contentious topic page (e.g.,WP:CT/BLP), which will cause the action to be automatically logged atWikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections. Administrators who renew, change, or revoke a contentious topic restriction must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry.
Administrators should clearly and unambiguously label their actions as contentious topic restrictions (such as in the block summary, page protection summary, edit summary, or talk page message announcing the action, whichever is appropriate).[g]
Editors must comply with contentious topic restrictions. Editors who disagree with a contentious topic restriction mayappeal it, but the restriction remains in effect until it is revoked or modified by an administrator.
Edits that breach an editor or page restriction may be reverted.[h]
Editors who breach an editor or page restriction may be blocked or subjected to further editor restrictions.
However, breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if:
All contentious topic restrictions (andlogged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.
The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:
Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using theapplicable template.
A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.
An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:
A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:
Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.
Uninvolved administrators at thearbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at theadministrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:
Arbitrators hearing an appeal at arequest for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:
| Imposed by: | Single administrator | Rough consensus of administrators at AE |
|---|---|---|
| Authorized restrictions |
|
|
| Maximum length | Indefinite; reversible by any uninvolved administrator after one year. However, page restrictions may berenewed. | Indefinite.[k] |
| Modifications by |
| |
When an editor first begins making edits within any contentious topic, anyone may alert the editor of the contentious topic designation using the{{Contentious topics/alert/first}} template. Only the officially designated templates should be used for an editor's first contentious topic alert, and these templates may not be placed using abot or other form of automated editing without the prior approval of the Arbitration Committee. When alerting an editor who has previously received any contentious topic alert, the{{alert}} template may be used, but any message that conveys the contentious topic designation is acceptable.[l]
If the enforcing administrator believes that an editor was not aware that they were editing a designated contentious topic when making inappropriate edits, no editor restrictions (other than alogged warning) should be imposed.[m] Once alerted to a specific contentious topic, editors are presumed to remain aware but may attempt to refute this presumption on appeal.[n]
Administrators should seek to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment within contentious topics. Administrators are expected to use their experience and judgment to balance the need toassume good faith, toavoid biting genuine newcomers and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with the need to keepedit-warring,battleground conduct, anddisruptive behaviour to a minimum. Before imposing a contentious topic restriction, administrators must consider whether a regular administrative action would be sufficient to reduce disruption to the project.
While contentious topic restrictions give administrators necessary latitude, administrators must not:
Administrators who fail to meet these expectations may be subject to any remedy the committee considers appropriate, including desysopping. Administrative actions may be peer-reviewed using the regular appeal processes.
Before imposing a delegated enforcement action, administrators must consider whether a regular administrative action would be sufficient to reduce disruption to the project.
Former administrators – that is, editors who have temporarily or permanently relinquished the tools or have been desysopped – may neither act as administrators in arbitration enforcement nor reverse their own previous administrative actions.
Thearbitration enforcement noticeboard may consider:
For all other matters, including content disagreements or the enforcement of other community-imposed sanctions, editors should use the other fora described in thedispute resolution process. To appeal decisions made directly by the Arbitration Committee, editors should submit arequest for clarification or amendment.
Requests and appeals at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may not be closed with a "rough consensus" or "clear consensus" outcome without at least 24 hours of discussion.
A consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may refer an arbitration enforcement request to the Arbitration Committee for final decision through arequest for amendment.
When no actual violation occurred, or the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate, administrators may also close a report with no action; if appropriate, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches.
Administrators wishing to dismiss an enforcement request should act cautiously and be especially mindful that their actions do not give the impression that they are second-guessing the Arbitration Committee or obstructing the enforcement of their decisions.
Dismissed requests may not be reopened. However, any interested users may, after discussion with the administrator in question, appeal the dismissal to the Arbitration Committee at "ARCA". Petitioners who forum shop by resubmitting denied enforcement requests without good reason may find themselves cautioned or sanctioned in return.
Certain pages (including thearbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE"), theadministrators' noticeboard ("AN"), and the Arbitration Committee'srequests for amendment ("ARCA")) are used for the fair, well-informed, and timely resolution of individual and page restrictions. Editors participating in enforcement cases must disclose fully their involvement with parties (if any). While good-faith statements are welcome, editors are expected to discuss only evidence and procedure; they are not expected to trade insults or engage in character assassination.Insults and personal attacks,soapboxing andcasting aspersions are as unacceptable in enforcement discussions as elsewhere on Wikipedia. Uninvolved administrators are asked to ensure that enforcement cases are not disrupted, and may remove statements or restrict or block editors to address inappropriate conduct.
Contentious topics may be designated either as part of the final decision of an arbitration case or by Arbitration Committee motion. When it becomes apparent that a particular contentious topic designation is no longer necessary, the Committee may rescind it. Any editor may request that the Committee review a contentious topic designation by submitting arequest for amendment ("ARCA"). Unless the Committee specifies otherwise, after rescinding a designation, all restrictions previously-issued under that designation remain in force and continue to be governed by the contentious topics procedure.
Any restrictions imposed under the prior discretionary sanctions procedure to date remain in force. Any changes to or appeals regarding previously-imposed restrictions will be governed by the current contentious topics procedure, subject to the following transitional rules:
The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas.[2] When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, onlyextended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions:
The Committee may apply the "Reliable source consensus-required restriction" to specified topic areas. For topic areas with this restriction, when a source that is not an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution is removed from an article, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at theReliable Sources Noticeboard. Administrators may enforce this restriction with page protections, topic bans, or blocks; enforcement decisions should consider not merely the severity of the violation but the general disciplinary record of the editor in violation.
Arbitrators and arbitration clerks may, after consultation with the Arbitration Committee, update and maintain templates and procedural documents related to arbitration enforcement processes (including the contentious topics system).
Thearbitration enforcement noticeboard may consider:
For all other matters, including content disagreements or the enforcement of other community-imposed sanctions, editors should use the other fora described in thedispute resolution process. To appeal decisions made directly by the Arbitration Committee, editors should submit arequest for clarification or amendment.
Requests and appeals at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may not be closed with a "rough consensus" or "clear consensus" outcome without at least 24 hours of discussion.
Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
An uninvolved administrator may impose the "AE participation restriction" (AEPR) on any AE thread. Comments in threads restricted in this manner are limited to:
Administrators have broad discretion in moderating AE threads, including removing users' sections, instructing users not to participate, and imposing AE sanctions against those who misuse the noticeboard.
A consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may refer an arbitration enforcement request to the Arbitration Committee for final decision through arequest for amendment.
The Arbitration Committee shall, from time to time, designate one or more arbitrators to serve as the Committee's coordinating arbitrators.
Coordinating arbitrators shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existingarbitration clerks assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.
The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:
A coordinating arbitrator may, but is not required to, state an intention to abstain on some or all matters before the Committee without being listed as an "inactive" arbitrator.
The procedure for handling incoming mail toarbcom-en is as follows:
Once incoming mail has cleared list moderation, each message shall be acknowledged with a standard message and processed by the coordinating arbitrator or their deputy within 24 hours of receipt:
Trainee clerks will have a term of up to 1 year after their appointment as a trainee to be promoted to full clerk. This term may be extended by the Committee.
Full clerks will be asked to confirm their desire to stay a clerk every 2 years, from the date they were appointed as a full clerk. There are no term limits for full clerks.
Significant or substantive modifications of theArbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee'spublic motions page; shall be announced on theCommittee's noticeboard and theadministrator's noticeboard by the clerks when first proposed; and shall remain open for at least 24 hours after those announcements are made.
The Committee will consider and adopt resolutions as follows:
Resolutions intended for public dissemination will be published to the Arbitration Committee noticeboard. Internal resolutions will be retained in the Committee's internal records.
The Committee sometimes needs to act urgently and it may do so as an interim measure, without a formal vote of the entire Committee, once a resolution proposing urgent action and explicitly stated as such has been unanimously supported by a quorum of the Committee, comprising a third of all active non-recused arbitrators. Such resolutions will be interim measures, pending review by the entire Committee.
A request for amendment of a closed case must clearly state the following:
Any request which does not comply with these criteria will be summarily removed.
Arequest for clarification or amendment is eligible to be closed by an arbitrator if:
The closing arbitrator should include a summary of the rough consensus when closing the request for clarification or amendment.
