Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page documents procedures used by the Clerks in assisting the Arbitration Committee.

These procedures, while not policy, are intended for the use of Clerks and should mainly be edited by them or by members of the Arbitration Committee. Others may edit them, but should not make substantial changes to them without discussing them with the Arbitration Committee first.

[edit] Opening a case

A case should be opened one day after the fourth (net) Arbitrator has accepted it.

• Choose a non-offensive name that does not telegraph an opinion. Try to name the case after the issue or article at the center of the dispute. If there is no clear central issue other than the behavior of the involved editor/s, use their name/s, but avoid adversarial terms like "Fred vs Barney."

1. Copy the case from WP:RFAR to the new case page, following the template.
   • Replace party names with {{Userlinks|name}} or {{Admin|name}} where appropriate.
   • Copy the statements of the parties to the main page and the statements of "uninvolved" editors to the talk page. Make sure to adjust the section headers. (WP:RFAR uses ====Level 4 Sections=== for statements but the case template uses ==Level 2 Sections==.
   • Copy the arb vote tally and their actual votes.
   • If there is way too much stuff pick the most relevant parts and put the entire original on the talk page.
2. Don't forget to uncomment the case opened timestamp at the top.
3. Save.
4. Delete the section off of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.
5. Next go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Evidence and copy the contents.
6. Follow the "evidence" link from the page created above and paste the template.
7. Do not subst the template; this will screw up the ~~~~~ timestamps in HTML comments.
8. Go back to the main page and then follow the "Workshop" link from the main page created above.
9. Go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop and copy the contents to the new Workshop page.
10. Repeat for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Proposed decision.
11. Make sure all four pages are on your watchlist.
12. On proposed decision, calculate recused and active Arbitrators and calculate number of votes required.
13. See {{ACA}} for the next two steps, involving that template.
14. Notify parties and commentators on their talk page (signatures are automatically included):

    {{subst:ArbComOpenedParty|My new case}}

    {{subst:ArbComOpenedComment|My new case}}

15. Then update {{ArbComOpenTasks}} with: (don't subst these, replace IN and Username with initials and your username)

    {{Evidence|Casename|The date}}

    |{{wpc|IN|Username}}

16. Use combot to add the case to the IRC clerk's channel

[edit] Opening a case with ArbComBot

1. A case should be opened one day after the fourth (net) Arbitrator has accepted it.
2. Open Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template and by editing it, copy its contents.
3. Make a new page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/(Name of case).
   • Choose a non-offensive name that does not telegraph an opinion. Try to name the case after the issue or article at the center of the dispute. If there is no clear central issue other than the behavior of the involved editor/s, use their name/s, but avoid adversarial terms like "Fred vs Barney."
4. Paste the contents of the template and save.
5. Copy the case from WP:RFAR to the new case page, following the template.
   • Replace party names with {{Userlinks|name}} or {{Admin|name}} where appropriate.
   • Copy the statements of the parties to the main page and the statements of "uninvolved" editors to the talk page. Make sure to adjust the section headers. (WP:RFAR uses ====Sections=== for statements but the case template uses ==Sections==.
   • If there is way too much stuff pick the most relevant parts and put the entire original on the talk page.
6. Don't forget to uncomment the case opened timestamp at the top.
7. Save the page.
8. Delete the section off of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.
9. Run arbcombot by filling in the template at User:ArbComBot/task. See instructions at User talk:ArbComBot/task.
10. On Proposed decision, calculate recused and active Arbitrators and calculate number of votes required. (bot can do this if you have a field for it)
11. Then update Template:ArbComOpenTasks:

    {{Evidence|My new case|The date}} (don't subst:- the templates) - again the bot can do this, given that we put an html comment into the template)

[edit] In progress

Generally, 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 have the same rights as other editors to offer proposals on the workshop page; recusal is generally not necessary.

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.

[edit] Closing a case

1. Subst the {{ACA|Casename}} on the proposed decision talk page. This will finalize the list of arbitrators who participated (or were eligible to participate) in the decision.
2. Go to the proposed decision page. Click "edit" next to the big "Proposed final decision" header.
3. Copy everything in the edit window. Delete any proposals that do not pass or are superseded by other proposals. For all proposals that have been passed, replace the arbitrators' votes with tally numbers, in the form

   :''Passed X to X, ~~~~~''

4. Go to the main case page, click "edit" next to the big "Final decision (none yet)" header, and paste.
5. Remove the words "none yet" from the final decision header.
6. Remove "proposed" from each of the section headers and remove the "Motion to close" and "Discussion by Arbitrators" sections from the text.
7. Remove the commented and no-wiki'ed "case closed" notice at the top of the main case page, and remove the green "this page shouldn't be edited, evidence to /Evidence" box at the page top.
8. Prepare a short summary of the decision for purposes of notification. The heading of the summary should be a link to the decision itself. The summary usually begins with the words "This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above." This usually followed with a description of the remedies portion of the decision. Feel free to consult with other clerks if you are unsure what to include in the summary.
9. Notify all parties to the case of the decision by posting the summary on their talk pages.
10. Post the summary on WP:AN in a new section.
11. Post the summary on "Admin Enforcement Requested" (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER) if appropriate. A more detailed summary including an explanation of the decision's enforcement provisions may be appropriate here.
12. If the decision bans any user(s) from editing Wikipedia for a substantial time (not including short-term bans or bans from a particular article(s) or subject(s)), add the appropriate entry to Wikipedia:List of banned users#Banned by the Arbitration Committee.
13. If the decision of the case includes the use of general sanctions (that is, sanctions on a general editing area), add details to Wikipedia:General sanctions. If the decision includes the use of restrictions on the editing of an individual editor, list the details at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions
14. Add a link to the closed case to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests. Under the case link, list the parties to the case and the remedies ordered.
15. Update Template:ArbComOpenTasks, and include the username and initials of the Clerk who closed the case and can answer any questions that the parties or others may have. This date is the same as the bolded close date on the main case page, ie, the date closed, not the date of the final vote. This is also the date any bans, etc would take effect.

    If appropriate, prune older closed cases from the list of recently closed cases.

16. If applicable, place {{subst:User article ban arb|UserName|Duration|Case name}} at the top of the talk pages of articles from which the party or parties is banned.
17. If applicable, stick {{Article probation}} on articles on which article probation has been ordered, or post to the article talkpage explaining any remedies that have been ordered with respect to a specific article.

[edit] Closing motions in prior cases

1. A motion passes if a majority of the Arbitrators listed as active on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee support it. This majority is calculated in the usual manner (total number of active Arbitrators divided by two, then plus one).
2. If the case will affect existing remedies or sanctions, check whether a motion is missing that "Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under this case to date shall remain in force unaffected."
3. Copy the motion, voting, etc. from WP:RFAR/AER to the proposed decision subpage of the case in question and link to its source. Use a permanent link to the page and revision showing the final discussion and voting as the source of the decision (see 'permanent link' in left sidebar).
4. Add the motions only (with the usual tally indicating by how many votes the motion was passed and the date of passing) to a new section in the main subpage of the case. Mark them clearly as amended remedies/enforcements, referencing the same permanent link there too. Strike out any superseded motions using <s>...</s> and add a note "Superseded on <date>".
5. Once the main subpage of the case and its talk page are updated, with both linked to the appropriate revision, the entire request can be deleted from WP:RFAR/AER.
6. Notify the parties on their talk pages.
7. Post to WP:AN.
8. Discussion of prior cases in the "requests for clarification" section of WP:RFAR, other than motions by arbitrators, may be archived to the talkpage of the prior case if the Clerk believes it will be helpful in construing or following the decision. The section header should make clear that the discussion post-dates the original decision.

[edit] Pruning WP:RfAr

[edit] Requests for arbitration

1. A case is only opened after one day of four (net) Arbitrators accepting it; that is, four more accept than reject votes. Cases that have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days should be removed from the page. (see WP:RFAR/G)

[edit] Requests for clarification

1. From time to time, review the entries in the "requests for clarification" section on WP:RfAr. Good-faith requests for clarification should be left in place in this section until the discussion is concluded, preferably including input from one or more arbitrators where applicable. When the discussion is concluded, the thread should be removed from the RfAr page.
2. If the discussion has longer-term significance in the interpretation or enforcement of the ruling in a particular closed case, it can be archived to the talkpage of that case, under a heading such as "Request for clarification (December 2007)". If the discussion has longer-term significance but not regarding a particular case, it can be archived to the Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration archives. If the discussion does not have long-term significance, it can simply be removed from the page and not archived.

[edit] Article bans and probation

[edit] Articles bans

The following templates may be applied to article talk pages to inform editors of user article bans.

{{User article ban arb|User name|expiry date|Case name|Your name}}, which makes

Example is banned from editing the Arbitration Committee/Clerks article, for a period ending a date.
	The above mentioned editor has been banned by the Arbitration Committee from editing the Arbitration Committee/Clerks article. Whilst the user is not prohibited from discussing or proposing changes to the article, on this talk page, they may not edit the article itself. Upon expiry of this ban, any editor may remove this notice. Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Example, the relevant Arbitration case in which the editor was banned, for further details.
This notice was posted by {{{4|~~~~ on behalf of the Arbitration Committee.

Please see the template's documentation for assistance in using this template.

[edit] Probation

There are several forms of article probation. The generic template refers to the strictest form, in which editors who edit the article disruptively may be banned from the article. The arbitrators frequently use milder forms of article probation. Carefully read the decision and subst: and customize the notice as appropriate.

{{subst:Article probation}}

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. Administrators: when banning a user from an article, look up this article on the list of active general sanctions, select the relevant Arbitration case, and list the user under the Log of Bans at the page bottom.

If the Committee passes a decision which places an article on probation, that decision should be listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions.