This page documents the internal procedures of the arbitration clerks, and should not be changed without committee or clerk authorisation. These procedures supplement and implement the Arbitration Policy and the Arbitration Committee's procedures. Questions about these should go to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. |
All arbitration cases begin as a request for arbitration on the requests page ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case). Clerks: regulate the format and presentation of all arbitration requests; ensure that any editors involved in the dispute are aware of the request; and enforce standards of conduct on the requests page. When the committee reaches a decision, the clerks open a case for the dispute or remove the request as unsuccessful. The committee may also dispatch a case request by motion, which the clerks would implement. Unless otherwise specified, cases decided by motion are treated like a declined case request (once the motion is implemented).
A minimum of 48 hours must elapse after a case request has been posted before the request may be accepted or declined. (A possible exception is where a request is clearly meaningless or frivolous, more information on which is listed at the end of this section.)
When a new request for an arbitration case is submitted:
To remove a case request as declined:
This section of the arbitration guide has more detailed guidance on declined case requests.
You should also do the following things, unless the case request is obviously frivolous:
[[Special:Permalink/''oldid number''#''section_name''|text of your message here]]
). Ideally, you should also include in your notification a balanced, neutral summary of the arbitrators reasons for declining (if there is a consensus) and recommendations offered by the arbitrators within their votes.You can use {{ Arb premature}} if a case request is obviously unsuitable or frivolous.
To remove a case request which has been withdrawn by filing party:
If the conditions at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Withdrawn case requests apply follow the procedure as above.
To remove a case request as declined by motion:
Occasionally, the Committee will choose to dispatch a case request by motion instead of opening a full case. In such a circumstance:
To remove a case request as accepted:
See the following section.
An arbitration case request should be treated as accepted and opened if it meets all of the following criteria:
A case may be opened earlier, waiving provisions 2 and 3 above, if a majority of arbitrators support fast-track opening in their acceptance votes.
(A) Create case information page
|
---|
|
B) Create case Evidence, Workshop, and Proposed Decision pages and talk pages
|
---|
|
C) Watchlisting, Casenav, and Notifications
|
---|
|
Requests for clarification and requests for amendment are both received at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment or WP:A/R/CA. (Historically, these requests had separate pages, but those were merged in 2012.) Clar. and Amend. requests, respectively, are requests for the committee to clarify an unclear point in one of its previous decisions and to amend a previous decision.
Usually, decisions eligible for clarification or amendment by the committee are final decisions made in a full arbitration. However, occasionally, the committee is asked to clarify or change one of its extra-case motions, a committee procedure, or a decision by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Appeals of arbitration enforcement (AE) actions are also heard as requests for amendments.
For amendments, users must clearly set out what amendment they wish to be made, by linking to the decision in question and asking, for example, for the decision in question to be vacated or for the given topic ban to be expanded to include a wider set of articles. Requests must be made in the prescribed format.
For clarifications, the decision must be linked to and the point of confusion must be clearly explained.
Under the Appeals of topic bans procedure, amendments which ask for a topic ban to be amended or vacated (that is, a topic ban appeal) may not be submitted until six months from the date the topic ban was made by the committee; this excludes appeals of topic bans placed in enforcement of an arbitration decision, which are considered AE actions. This procedure does not apply to decisions which specify a different timeline for appealing.
Under the Format of requests for amendment procedure, amendments which do not follow the usual format may be summarily dismissed.
When a new request for amendment or clarification is submitted, the clerks must:
When a new motion is proposed, the clerks must:
If multiple motions have been proposed, the clerks may:
or
For simplicity, these instructions will refer to "clarification" requests, but these instructions also apply to amendment requests.
===
code) to the new-section header box. If on the same archive subpage there is a request with the same name you can add the current month and year in parenthesis to the end - (March 2024)
, but this is not needed by default.result=
parameter of the template, and sign it. Add {{
archive bottom}} to a new line at the bottom of the edit window.|reason
parameter listing the result of the clarification request, e.g., {{
hat|reason=Amendment request declined. ~~~~}}
.When a motion is proposed in a clarification or amendment request and that motion has carried, do the following. A request for clarification or amendment may lead the Committee to decide that the situation may require a formal motion of the Committee. Follow this procedure only if the request is listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment; otherwise, follow the procedure in the section below this one.
When a motion is proposed in a clarification/amendment request and the motion fails, you should treat it as a resolved clarification or amendment request and archive the motion with the rest of the request.
These instructions apply only to stand-alone motions on the "Motions" request sub-page. For motions enacted as a result of a clarification or amendment request, more edits need to be made in order to also archive the associated discussion, so use the clarification/amendment instructions at #Clarification/amendment requests with a motion.
When a motion is proposed, you should inform any editors affected by the motion by leaving a message on their talk page.
If multiple motions have been proposed, the clerks may:
If a motion voted on at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions receives the support of more than half the non-recused arbitrators active on the motion, the motion carries and should be implemented 24 hours after the time it first passed.
===
code) to the new-section header box, adding the current month and year in parenthesis to the end - (March 2024)
.result=
parameter of the template, and sign it. Add {{
archive bottom}} to a new line at the bottom of the edit window.
Occasionally the Arbitrators may vote to suspend a case, the following procedure should be used to implement a case suspension:
|CASENAME-date-suspended=31 May 2013
. Once you save the page, you should have added something like
[1], and on the case subpages, in place of the old line specifying the deadlines, there should now be a note that the case is suspended. The case page and subpages should also be fully protected, with the protection set to expire when the suspension ends.|suspended=true
(like
this). The case's entry on ArbComOpenTasks will automatically be updated to reflect the fact that it is suspended: the case name will be stricken through, the evidence deadline will not be shown, and the text Case suspended will be shown underneath "Proposed decision deadline".The procedure for closing a case is as follows:
<big>'''Case closed''' on ~~~~~</big>
(5 tildes). This will render the time and date the case was closed. Also in the lead section, remove the blue box that refers to the case being open, as well as the following two paragraphs of text: "Do not edit this page unless you ... as the Proposed Decision." Also remove [[Category:Open ArbCom Cases]]
from the bottom of the page.The clerks will be required for all cases at its beginning and end, to open and close the case. However, many arbitration cases also require the clerks' attention throughout the case, not least because the arbitration policy authorises the clerks as follows:
The Committee maintains a panel of clerks to assist with the smooth running of its functions. The clerks' functions include the administration of arbitration cases and management of all the Committee's pages and subpages; enforcing Committee decisions; implementing procedures; and enforcing good standards of conduct and decorum on the Committee's pages.
Ordinarily, the Clerk who opens a case should follow the progress of the case, watchlist the case pages, and be available to answer questions from the parties. Clerks should generally not offer substantive advice or suggestions to any Arbitrator or party, though they may choose to suggest rewordings and clarifications at their discretion.
Ensuring allegations and proposals (by non-arbs) are supported by evidence. Proposed findings of fact should be supported by links to on the /Evidence page and/or to include a few of the best diffs, to illustrate each aspect of the finding of fact. Remedies must be supported by the same, or by direct links to proposed findings of fact.
Closure of Evidence and Workshop phases. Around 24 hours before the phases closes leave a message on the applicable talk page stating that the phase is about to close. When the phase closes {{ Arbitration case phase closed}} may be placed as an editnotice and/or at the top of the page (also remove the instructions on how to make submissions).
When pages need to be undeleted for evidence, undelete the page, move it (without leaving a redirect) to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME/Evidence/ORIGINALPAGENAME, blank it and replace the content with a message similar to {{ TempUndelete}} (adjust it for the purpose of the case). When closing the case move the page (without leaving a redirect) back to its original title and delete it again. When performing log actions (moving, deleting, etc) ensure that the edit summary indicates that the action was performed by a clerk acting on instructions from the Committee, and include a link to the case.
When the proposed decision is posted, and when any additional proposed remedies are proposed, any editors affected should be informed. Template:ArbComPD can be used for this purpose. Depending on the number of parties consider using WP:Mass message (or ask a clerk who knows how).
When the case is close to finishing, the Clerk should make an entry in the "Implementation notes" section at the bottom of the proposed decision page. This will indicate which proposals have passed. If there are any ambiguities concerning which proposals have been adopted, the Clerk should identify them so the Arbitrators have an opportunity to clarify them before the decision is finalized and announced. We have a template that can be used, ACImplNotes. An example of its use is here.
There are occasionally cases where Arbitrators propose alternate versions of a similar proposal (e.g. User X is reminded vs. User X is admonished). If both are passing by vote count, then the Arbitrators' rationales should be looked into. The one that is the first choice for the most number of Arbitrators should be passed. In case of a tie of first choices, individual Arbitrators who have not expressed a preference should be contacted. Do not close the case until there is a net change.
This email statement by an arbitrator on the subject of posting notifications to the clerks' email list is recommended reading for new clerk trainees. (Login to the clerks' mailing list required)
When removing evidence that is off-topic, out of scope, or otherwise inappropriate you can use the {{ EvidenceRemoved}} template.
Contentious topics
|
---|
Standardised Arbitration Enforcement (AE) templatesThis section transcluded from: Template:Contentious topics/list/single notice [ ] [ Contentious topics template subpages Alerting
Enforcement
Whenever contentious topics are (de)authorised for a topic, update these: {{ Contentious topics/list}} ( ), WP:GS §3.1 ( ), and {{ Contentious topics/table}} ( ). |
Generic notice (or 'mbox') templates
| ||
---|---|---|
|
Editors who have put evidence on userspace subpages
|
---|
See Template:Subpage evidence for documentation and usage notes. In relation to your evidence submissions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Example/Evidence#Section title was not declared in the template!, please be aware that the Arbitration Committee does not take evidence on subpages into account. Please remove the link to all such subpages from the Evidence page, and transfer what material you want to submit for consideration to your own section (within the confines of the word limit). Thank you, |
Premature arbitration requests
|
---|
{{
Arb premature}}
Customisable depending on the nature of the arbitration request. This example is for premature requests for arbitration about a content dispute ( Hi, Jimmy Wales! In response to your request for arbitration, the Arbitration Committee has decided that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance. Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard also exists as a method of resolving content disputes that aren't easily resolved with talk page discussion. In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of the community if you have more questions. ~~~~This template should always be substed. In the above example, it is not. |
Notifying users that they have been named in a new proposed decision
|
---|
{{
ArbComPD}}
You should usually use Hi {{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}, in the open Muhammad images arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, ~~~~ |
RFAR statement length issues
|
---|
{{ ArbComSize}}: Hi, Arbitration Committee/Clerks. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators. For the Arbitration Committee, |
Clerk userpage stuff
|
---|
{{ Arbitration Clerk topicon}} {{ User arbclerk}} |
The
Committee's procedures provide that 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).
The "consultation" requirement may be fulfilled by emailing clerks-l with a link to or description of the proposed update. The update may be made if no arbitrator objects or if discussion at clerks-l favors the update.
The community authorised
Arbitration policy makes clerks responsible for the administration of arbitration cases and management of all the Committee's pages and subpages; enforcing Committee decisions; implementing procedures; and enforcing good standards of conduct and decorum on the Committee's pages
. Decisions in cases have further clarified the authority of clerks to enforce standards of behaviour and the ways in which clerks are empowered to do this.
[enforcement 1]
The jurisdiction of the clerks extends to the following:
However, the management and maintenance of order at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement has traditionally been left to the administrators active there. All pages relating to Arbitration Committee elections are outside the jurisdiction of the clerks as they are under the community's responsibility.
Discussions on the mailing list in February 2014 have clarified and decided upon the following standardised enforcement process. Editors behaving in a manner which does not meet the appropriate standards of conduct and decorum may be sanctioned as follows:
Authority to issue sanctions
{{
ArbCom evidence length header|word=xxx|diff=xx|link=xx}}
{{
ArbCom evidence length header|word=xxx|diff=xx|link=xx|party=yes}}
The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 1000 words and 100 diffs. Your presentation is over xxxx words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, ~~~~
The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is over xxxx words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, ~~~~
Clerks-l discussions from September 2015 and April 2016 have clarified that the headers of statements in arbitration pages should be kept standard, as follows:
Whenever there are changes (including new sanctions and amendments) the following pages may need to be updated:
For pages which are covered (or now not covered) by sanctions add the appropriate template to the article talk page (ask another clerk for assistance if needed):
{{
Ds/talk notice|topic=code|style=long or brief}}
, see the
template's documentation for details.When modifying an existing case (because of a arbitrator motion or a motion at a request for clarification/amendment which has been enacted):
(March 2024)
) or, if was just given a generic name, "Amendment (March 2024)".Site bans
After the user talk page notification of the decision being enacted:
{{banned user|by=the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]]|link=[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Example#Example banned|arbitration decision]]}}
Note on sitebans
Other bans and editing restrictions (including topic or interaction bans, mentoring, 1RR, restrictions of use of admin tools)
After the user talk page notification of the decision being enacted:
Desysops
After the user talk page notification of the decision being enacted:
A clerk should not be acting in their official capacity in a matter—be it a case, discussion, request, or otherwise—in which they are not a neutral party. Use your common sense in determining whether or not you are neutral, and do not hesitate to ask, on clerks-l or the clerks' noticeboard, that another clerk take over your duties in a given matter if you become conflicted.
This e-mailed statement from the committee is required reading for all clerks (valid login for clerks-l mailing list required).
{{ ACMajority}}, automates the calculation of majorities.
The majority is equal to: The number of active arbitrators halved, plus one, rounded down to nearest whole number; an "active arbitrator" is any arbitrator who is not recused and who is considered active by virtue of their status at WP:AC/M, their involvement in the given arbitration proceedings, or by their special directions to the clerks.
Active arbitrators | Respective majority | Active arbitrators | Respective majority |
---|---|---|---|
17 | 9 | 12 | 7 |
16 | 9 | 11 | 6 |
15 | 8 | 10 | 6 |
14 | 8 | 9 | 5 |
13 | 7 | 8 | 5 |
Note that {{ ACMajority}} can be used to easily calculate the majority for a given case, and additionally provides a table of what the majority would be with various numbers of abstentions. The table can be hidden, when the majority by-line needs to be used for a motion (not on a case page).
Each arbitrator is presumed to be active unless they have recused or abstained (usually per direction on clerks-l) on a specific case, matter, or other vote; or unless they are listed as inactive in the Members list.
Arbitrators that are listed as inactive on the general list but who have been active on a given matter (such as voting to accept a case) are taken to be active (and, if necessary, the count adjusted accordingly); excluding Arbitrators who are recused.
The ArbCom noticeboard, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, has been (since January 2009) the page for announcements by the ArbCom (or its clerks). Only Arbitrators and the clerks, acting in their official capacity, are to add announcements to the noticeboard. A "discuss this" link at the bottom of every announcement has as its target the noticeboard talk page, to allow for discussion of the notice by any who wish to participate. Clarifications or suggestions relating to the announcement should probably be made by following that link.
: Discuss this at: '''[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Thread title]]'''
{{subst:Hes}}
: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#XY|'''Original announcement''']]
The procedure for cross-posting is:
In response to elections
Maintaining logs and index pages
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Header}}</noinclude>
to the top of the page==2024==
=2015=
to ={{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}=
, and save the page.From time to time arbitrators will go inactive or reactivate from inactivity. When that happens a number of pages must be updated (when an arbitrator activates, the process is generally the reverse of the process when an arbitrator goes inactive). Move the arbitrator to the "inactive" section (or "active", if dealing with a resumption of activity) of the following pages:
Make sure that any relevant dates (eg 'as of' day month year) are updated, and ensure that on the master list the total number of active arbitrators is updated.
Include phrasing in the edit summary such as "updating active/inactive counts," "{arbname} now active on {case} per clerks-l".
Also update the majority on any motions on the clarification and amendment and motions pages. The arbitrator going inactive or active may have left special instructions which may have to be noted on the relevant pages.
If you are asked to remove the arbitrator's votes, indent them. If they have voted first, you will have to remove the # sign. If they have voted after another arbitrator, you can add a colon after the hash sign, '#:'
Upon the retirement of an arbitrator from the committee, there is a handful of paperwork-type tasks to be completed:
Additionally, the following should be done by an arbitrator. Extensive nagging should be used to remind the powers that be to complete all the paperwork once the retiring arbitrator has been removed.
If the clerks reach a clear consensus that an editor who has expressed an interest in clerking is suitable (and the Committee has no objections), then the process for appointing that editor is as follows. Clerks are initially appointed as a trainee (see welcome message below for details). Whereas appointment of a trainee is mostly a matter for the clerks, the decision to appoint an editor as a full clerk lies with the Committee (and usually follows a traineeship).
Welcome message for user talk page of new clerks
|
---|
Hi <Clerkname>. We have added you to the list of clerks and subscribed you to the mailing list (info: [[WP:AC/C#clerks-l]]). Welcome, and I look forward to working with you! To adjust your subscription options for the mailing list, see the link at [[mail:clerks-l]]. The mailing list works in the usual way, and the address to which new mailing list threads can be sent is {{clerks-l}}. Useful reading for new clerks is the procedures page, [[WP:AC/C/P]], but you will learn all the basic components of clerking [[wikt:on-the-job|on-the-job]]. |
Once a trainee can effectively perform all clerking tasks (those listed at the bottom of this section) one of the full clerks will start a discussion amongst all the full clerks (usually with an off list group email) to reach a consensus as to whether recommend the trainee to the Arbitration Committee for promotion. If either the full clerks or the Committee do not reach a consensus to promote they will usually create a way for that clerk to find a way to show the experience/skills which are lacking.
While there is no criteria for promotion the full clerks will generally want to see experience with a wide range of aspects of the clerk role, some of these won't be possible, in which case the full clerks will look for an ability to deal with unknown situations or similar experiences outside the arbitration process:
Removal when the clerk has not resigned should be discussed first on clerk-l. If a clerk retires from editing they should usually be marked as a former clerk. If the clerk has not marked themselves as retired but has been inactive for a while, attempts to contact them should be made before removal. If the clerk is blocked indefinitely for cause, then a discussion should be started on whether to remove the clerk from clerking. Discussion should not be needed if the committee has instructed the clerk be removed immediately from clerking or if you can be absolutely sure that the clerk has passed away (for example multiple reliable sources or family member(s) / friend(s) confirm their death). If the clerk is to be removed:
This page documents the internal procedures of the arbitration clerks, and should not be changed without committee or clerk authorisation. These procedures supplement and implement the Arbitration Policy and the Arbitration Committee's procedures. Questions about these should go to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. |
All arbitration cases begin as a request for arbitration on the requests page ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case). Clerks: regulate the format and presentation of all arbitration requests; ensure that any editors involved in the dispute are aware of the request; and enforce standards of conduct on the requests page. When the committee reaches a decision, the clerks open a case for the dispute or remove the request as unsuccessful. The committee may also dispatch a case request by motion, which the clerks would implement. Unless otherwise specified, cases decided by motion are treated like a declined case request (once the motion is implemented).
A minimum of 48 hours must elapse after a case request has been posted before the request may be accepted or declined. (A possible exception is where a request is clearly meaningless or frivolous, more information on which is listed at the end of this section.)
When a new request for an arbitration case is submitted:
To remove a case request as declined:
This section of the arbitration guide has more detailed guidance on declined case requests.
You should also do the following things, unless the case request is obviously frivolous:
[[Special:Permalink/''oldid number''#''section_name''|text of your message here]]
). Ideally, you should also include in your notification a balanced, neutral summary of the arbitrators reasons for declining (if there is a consensus) and recommendations offered by the arbitrators within their votes.You can use {{ Arb premature}} if a case request is obviously unsuitable or frivolous.
To remove a case request which has been withdrawn by filing party:
If the conditions at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Withdrawn case requests apply follow the procedure as above.
To remove a case request as declined by motion:
Occasionally, the Committee will choose to dispatch a case request by motion instead of opening a full case. In such a circumstance:
To remove a case request as accepted:
See the following section.
An arbitration case request should be treated as accepted and opened if it meets all of the following criteria:
A case may be opened earlier, waiving provisions 2 and 3 above, if a majority of arbitrators support fast-track opening in their acceptance votes.
(A) Create case information page
|
---|
|
B) Create case Evidence, Workshop, and Proposed Decision pages and talk pages
|
---|
|
C) Watchlisting, Casenav, and Notifications
|
---|
|
Requests for clarification and requests for amendment are both received at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment or WP:A/R/CA. (Historically, these requests had separate pages, but those were merged in 2012.) Clar. and Amend. requests, respectively, are requests for the committee to clarify an unclear point in one of its previous decisions and to amend a previous decision.
Usually, decisions eligible for clarification or amendment by the committee are final decisions made in a full arbitration. However, occasionally, the committee is asked to clarify or change one of its extra-case motions, a committee procedure, or a decision by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Appeals of arbitration enforcement (AE) actions are also heard as requests for amendments.
For amendments, users must clearly set out what amendment they wish to be made, by linking to the decision in question and asking, for example, for the decision in question to be vacated or for the given topic ban to be expanded to include a wider set of articles. Requests must be made in the prescribed format.
For clarifications, the decision must be linked to and the point of confusion must be clearly explained.
Under the Appeals of topic bans procedure, amendments which ask for a topic ban to be amended or vacated (that is, a topic ban appeal) may not be submitted until six months from the date the topic ban was made by the committee; this excludes appeals of topic bans placed in enforcement of an arbitration decision, which are considered AE actions. This procedure does not apply to decisions which specify a different timeline for appealing.
Under the Format of requests for amendment procedure, amendments which do not follow the usual format may be summarily dismissed.
When a new request for amendment or clarification is submitted, the clerks must:
When a new motion is proposed, the clerks must:
If multiple motions have been proposed, the clerks may:
or
For simplicity, these instructions will refer to "clarification" requests, but these instructions also apply to amendment requests.
===
code) to the new-section header box. If on the same archive subpage there is a request with the same name you can add the current month and year in parenthesis to the end - (March 2024)
, but this is not needed by default.result=
parameter of the template, and sign it. Add {{
archive bottom}} to a new line at the bottom of the edit window.|reason
parameter listing the result of the clarification request, e.g., {{
hat|reason=Amendment request declined. ~~~~}}
.When a motion is proposed in a clarification or amendment request and that motion has carried, do the following. A request for clarification or amendment may lead the Committee to decide that the situation may require a formal motion of the Committee. Follow this procedure only if the request is listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment; otherwise, follow the procedure in the section below this one.
When a motion is proposed in a clarification/amendment request and the motion fails, you should treat it as a resolved clarification or amendment request and archive the motion with the rest of the request.
These instructions apply only to stand-alone motions on the "Motions" request sub-page. For motions enacted as a result of a clarification or amendment request, more edits need to be made in order to also archive the associated discussion, so use the clarification/amendment instructions at #Clarification/amendment requests with a motion.
When a motion is proposed, you should inform any editors affected by the motion by leaving a message on their talk page.
If multiple motions have been proposed, the clerks may:
If a motion voted on at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions receives the support of more than half the non-recused arbitrators active on the motion, the motion carries and should be implemented 24 hours after the time it first passed.
===
code) to the new-section header box, adding the current month and year in parenthesis to the end - (March 2024)
.result=
parameter of the template, and sign it. Add {{
archive bottom}} to a new line at the bottom of the edit window.
Occasionally the Arbitrators may vote to suspend a case, the following procedure should be used to implement a case suspension:
|CASENAME-date-suspended=31 May 2013
. Once you save the page, you should have added something like
[1], and on the case subpages, in place of the old line specifying the deadlines, there should now be a note that the case is suspended. The case page and subpages should also be fully protected, with the protection set to expire when the suspension ends.|suspended=true
(like
this). The case's entry on ArbComOpenTasks will automatically be updated to reflect the fact that it is suspended: the case name will be stricken through, the evidence deadline will not be shown, and the text Case suspended will be shown underneath "Proposed decision deadline".The procedure for closing a case is as follows:
<big>'''Case closed''' on ~~~~~</big>
(5 tildes). This will render the time and date the case was closed. Also in the lead section, remove the blue box that refers to the case being open, as well as the following two paragraphs of text: "Do not edit this page unless you ... as the Proposed Decision." Also remove [[Category:Open ArbCom Cases]]
from the bottom of the page.The clerks will be required for all cases at its beginning and end, to open and close the case. However, many arbitration cases also require the clerks' attention throughout the case, not least because the arbitration policy authorises the clerks as follows:
The Committee maintains a panel of clerks to assist with the smooth running of its functions. The clerks' functions include the administration of arbitration cases and management of all the Committee's pages and subpages; enforcing Committee decisions; implementing procedures; and enforcing good standards of conduct and decorum on the Committee's pages.
Ordinarily, the Clerk who opens a case should follow the progress of the case, watchlist the case pages, and be available to answer questions from the parties. Clerks should generally not offer substantive advice or suggestions to any Arbitrator or party, though they may choose to suggest rewordings and clarifications at their discretion.
Ensuring allegations and proposals (by non-arbs) are supported by evidence. Proposed findings of fact should be supported by links to on the /Evidence page and/or to include a few of the best diffs, to illustrate each aspect of the finding of fact. Remedies must be supported by the same, or by direct links to proposed findings of fact.
Closure of Evidence and Workshop phases. Around 24 hours before the phases closes leave a message on the applicable talk page stating that the phase is about to close. When the phase closes {{ Arbitration case phase closed}} may be placed as an editnotice and/or at the top of the page (also remove the instructions on how to make submissions).
When pages need to be undeleted for evidence, undelete the page, move it (without leaving a redirect) to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME/Evidence/ORIGINALPAGENAME, blank it and replace the content with a message similar to {{ TempUndelete}} (adjust it for the purpose of the case). When closing the case move the page (without leaving a redirect) back to its original title and delete it again. When performing log actions (moving, deleting, etc) ensure that the edit summary indicates that the action was performed by a clerk acting on instructions from the Committee, and include a link to the case.
When the proposed decision is posted, and when any additional proposed remedies are proposed, any editors affected should be informed. Template:ArbComPD can be used for this purpose. Depending on the number of parties consider using WP:Mass message (or ask a clerk who knows how).
When the case is close to finishing, the Clerk should make an entry in the "Implementation notes" section at the bottom of the proposed decision page. This will indicate which proposals have passed. If there are any ambiguities concerning which proposals have been adopted, the Clerk should identify them so the Arbitrators have an opportunity to clarify them before the decision is finalized and announced. We have a template that can be used, ACImplNotes. An example of its use is here.
There are occasionally cases where Arbitrators propose alternate versions of a similar proposal (e.g. User X is reminded vs. User X is admonished). If both are passing by vote count, then the Arbitrators' rationales should be looked into. The one that is the first choice for the most number of Arbitrators should be passed. In case of a tie of first choices, individual Arbitrators who have not expressed a preference should be contacted. Do not close the case until there is a net change.
This email statement by an arbitrator on the subject of posting notifications to the clerks' email list is recommended reading for new clerk trainees. (Login to the clerks' mailing list required)
When removing evidence that is off-topic, out of scope, or otherwise inappropriate you can use the {{ EvidenceRemoved}} template.
Contentious topics
|
---|
Standardised Arbitration Enforcement (AE) templatesThis section transcluded from: Template:Contentious topics/list/single notice [ ] [ Contentious topics template subpages Alerting
Enforcement
Whenever contentious topics are (de)authorised for a topic, update these: {{ Contentious topics/list}} ( ), WP:GS §3.1 ( ), and {{ Contentious topics/table}} ( ). |
Generic notice (or 'mbox') templates
| ||
---|---|---|
|
Editors who have put evidence on userspace subpages
|
---|
See Template:Subpage evidence for documentation and usage notes. In relation to your evidence submissions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Example/Evidence#Section title was not declared in the template!, please be aware that the Arbitration Committee does not take evidence on subpages into account. Please remove the link to all such subpages from the Evidence page, and transfer what material you want to submit for consideration to your own section (within the confines of the word limit). Thank you, |
Premature arbitration requests
|
---|
{{
Arb premature}}
Customisable depending on the nature of the arbitration request. This example is for premature requests for arbitration about a content dispute ( Hi, Jimmy Wales! In response to your request for arbitration, the Arbitration Committee has decided that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance. Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard also exists as a method of resolving content disputes that aren't easily resolved with talk page discussion. In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of the community if you have more questions. ~~~~This template should always be substed. In the above example, it is not. |
Notifying users that they have been named in a new proposed decision
|
---|
{{
ArbComPD}}
You should usually use Hi {{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}, in the open Muhammad images arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, ~~~~ |
RFAR statement length issues
|
---|
{{ ArbComSize}}: Hi, Arbitration Committee/Clerks. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators. For the Arbitration Committee, |
Clerk userpage stuff
|
---|
{{ Arbitration Clerk topicon}} {{ User arbclerk}} |
The
Committee's procedures provide that 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).
The "consultation" requirement may be fulfilled by emailing clerks-l with a link to or description of the proposed update. The update may be made if no arbitrator objects or if discussion at clerks-l favors the update.
The community authorised
Arbitration policy makes clerks responsible for the administration of arbitration cases and management of all the Committee's pages and subpages; enforcing Committee decisions; implementing procedures; and enforcing good standards of conduct and decorum on the Committee's pages
. Decisions in cases have further clarified the authority of clerks to enforce standards of behaviour and the ways in which clerks are empowered to do this.
[enforcement 1]
The jurisdiction of the clerks extends to the following:
However, the management and maintenance of order at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement has traditionally been left to the administrators active there. All pages relating to Arbitration Committee elections are outside the jurisdiction of the clerks as they are under the community's responsibility.
Discussions on the mailing list in February 2014 have clarified and decided upon the following standardised enforcement process. Editors behaving in a manner which does not meet the appropriate standards of conduct and decorum may be sanctioned as follows:
Authority to issue sanctions
{{
ArbCom evidence length header|word=xxx|diff=xx|link=xx}}
{{
ArbCom evidence length header|word=xxx|diff=xx|link=xx|party=yes}}
The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 1000 words and 100 diffs. Your presentation is over xxxx words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, ~~~~
The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is over xxxx words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, ~~~~
Clerks-l discussions from September 2015 and April 2016 have clarified that the headers of statements in arbitration pages should be kept standard, as follows:
Whenever there are changes (including new sanctions and amendments) the following pages may need to be updated:
For pages which are covered (or now not covered) by sanctions add the appropriate template to the article talk page (ask another clerk for assistance if needed):
{{
Ds/talk notice|topic=code|style=long or brief}}
, see the
template's documentation for details.When modifying an existing case (because of a arbitrator motion or a motion at a request for clarification/amendment which has been enacted):
(March 2024)
) or, if was just given a generic name, "Amendment (March 2024)".Site bans
After the user talk page notification of the decision being enacted:
{{banned user|by=the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]]|link=[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Example#Example banned|arbitration decision]]}}
Note on sitebans
Other bans and editing restrictions (including topic or interaction bans, mentoring, 1RR, restrictions of use of admin tools)
After the user talk page notification of the decision being enacted:
Desysops
After the user talk page notification of the decision being enacted:
A clerk should not be acting in their official capacity in a matter—be it a case, discussion, request, or otherwise—in which they are not a neutral party. Use your common sense in determining whether or not you are neutral, and do not hesitate to ask, on clerks-l or the clerks' noticeboard, that another clerk take over your duties in a given matter if you become conflicted.
This e-mailed statement from the committee is required reading for all clerks (valid login for clerks-l mailing list required).
{{ ACMajority}}, automates the calculation of majorities.
The majority is equal to: The number of active arbitrators halved, plus one, rounded down to nearest whole number; an "active arbitrator" is any arbitrator who is not recused and who is considered active by virtue of their status at WP:AC/M, their involvement in the given arbitration proceedings, or by their special directions to the clerks.
Active arbitrators | Respective majority | Active arbitrators | Respective majority |
---|---|---|---|
17 | 9 | 12 | 7 |
16 | 9 | 11 | 6 |
15 | 8 | 10 | 6 |
14 | 8 | 9 | 5 |
13 | 7 | 8 | 5 |
Note that {{ ACMajority}} can be used to easily calculate the majority for a given case, and additionally provides a table of what the majority would be with various numbers of abstentions. The table can be hidden, when the majority by-line needs to be used for a motion (not on a case page).
Each arbitrator is presumed to be active unless they have recused or abstained (usually per direction on clerks-l) on a specific case, matter, or other vote; or unless they are listed as inactive in the Members list.
Arbitrators that are listed as inactive on the general list but who have been active on a given matter (such as voting to accept a case) are taken to be active (and, if necessary, the count adjusted accordingly); excluding Arbitrators who are recused.
The ArbCom noticeboard, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, has been (since January 2009) the page for announcements by the ArbCom (or its clerks). Only Arbitrators and the clerks, acting in their official capacity, are to add announcements to the noticeboard. A "discuss this" link at the bottom of every announcement has as its target the noticeboard talk page, to allow for discussion of the notice by any who wish to participate. Clarifications or suggestions relating to the announcement should probably be made by following that link.
: Discuss this at: '''[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Thread title]]'''
{{subst:Hes}}
: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#XY|'''Original announcement''']]
The procedure for cross-posting is:
In response to elections
Maintaining logs and index pages
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Header}}</noinclude>
to the top of the page==2024==
=2015=
to ={{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}=
, and save the page.From time to time arbitrators will go inactive or reactivate from inactivity. When that happens a number of pages must be updated (when an arbitrator activates, the process is generally the reverse of the process when an arbitrator goes inactive). Move the arbitrator to the "inactive" section (or "active", if dealing with a resumption of activity) of the following pages:
Make sure that any relevant dates (eg 'as of' day month year) are updated, and ensure that on the master list the total number of active arbitrators is updated.
Include phrasing in the edit summary such as "updating active/inactive counts," "{arbname} now active on {case} per clerks-l".
Also update the majority on any motions on the clarification and amendment and motions pages. The arbitrator going inactive or active may have left special instructions which may have to be noted on the relevant pages.
If you are asked to remove the arbitrator's votes, indent them. If they have voted first, you will have to remove the # sign. If they have voted after another arbitrator, you can add a colon after the hash sign, '#:'
Upon the retirement of an arbitrator from the committee, there is a handful of paperwork-type tasks to be completed:
Additionally, the following should be done by an arbitrator. Extensive nagging should be used to remind the powers that be to complete all the paperwork once the retiring arbitrator has been removed.
If the clerks reach a clear consensus that an editor who has expressed an interest in clerking is suitable (and the Committee has no objections), then the process for appointing that editor is as follows. Clerks are initially appointed as a trainee (see welcome message below for details). Whereas appointment of a trainee is mostly a matter for the clerks, the decision to appoint an editor as a full clerk lies with the Committee (and usually follows a traineeship).
Welcome message for user talk page of new clerks
|
---|
Hi <Clerkname>. We have added you to the list of clerks and subscribed you to the mailing list (info: [[WP:AC/C#clerks-l]]). Welcome, and I look forward to working with you! To adjust your subscription options for the mailing list, see the link at [[mail:clerks-l]]. The mailing list works in the usual way, and the address to which new mailing list threads can be sent is {{clerks-l}}. Useful reading for new clerks is the procedures page, [[WP:AC/C/P]], but you will learn all the basic components of clerking [[wikt:on-the-job|on-the-job]]. |
Once a trainee can effectively perform all clerking tasks (those listed at the bottom of this section) one of the full clerks will start a discussion amongst all the full clerks (usually with an off list group email) to reach a consensus as to whether recommend the trainee to the Arbitration Committee for promotion. If either the full clerks or the Committee do not reach a consensus to promote they will usually create a way for that clerk to find a way to show the experience/skills which are lacking.
While there is no criteria for promotion the full clerks will generally want to see experience with a wide range of aspects of the clerk role, some of these won't be possible, in which case the full clerks will look for an ability to deal with unknown situations or similar experiences outside the arbitration process:
Removal when the clerk has not resigned should be discussed first on clerk-l. If a clerk retires from editing they should usually be marked as a former clerk. If the clerk has not marked themselves as retired but has been inactive for a while, attempts to contact them should be made before removal. If the clerk is blocked indefinitely for cause, then a discussion should be started on whether to remove the clerk from clerking. Discussion should not be needed if the committee has instructed the clerk be removed immediately from clerking or if you can be absolutely sure that the clerk has passed away (for example multiple reliable sources or family member(s) / friend(s) confirm their death). If the clerk is to be removed: