维基百科:仲裁委員會/流程

仲裁流程

發起仲裁前的爭議解決

仲裁委員會通常要求編者在發起仲裁前嘗試已其他方法解決爭議。以下為例外情況：

• 事件涉及管理人員行為不當指控，或管理員間難以解決的糾紛；
• 事件已獲廣泛社群參與深入討論仍無果；
• 事件走向使委員會可合理認為前設爭議解決方法不會達成任何建設性結果。

發起仲裁

事件符合以下條件即可發起仲裁案：

1. 獲多數同意受理，或同意比不同意淨多三票；
2. 自滿足第一條已達24小時；及
3. 自提案已達48小時。

經多數仲裁員同意可豁免第二、三條提早受理案件。

新立案件

仲裁委員會受理案件後，會安排建立案件頁面，包含案件名稱、結構及時間表等資訊。仲裁委員會將委任若干名仲裁員擔任該案之主委，負責起草案件、推進仲裁程序，並在出現問題時擔任案件的聯絡人。

仲裁案的正常架構如下：

1. 證據提交期，自建立案件頁面起計，為時兩週；
2. 辯論期，自證據提交期結束起計，為時一週；
3. 案件結論將於辯論期結束一週內發佈。

仲裁委員會可經決議調整任何案件的時間表及架構，包括在合理範圍內延長、縮短、增加或取消特定審議階段（註：以上三個階段均不可取消）。為確保仲裁流程期間用戶行為符合規範，主委有權在審議案件期間制定該案的討論規則（如在辯論階段設置字數限制）。擬議各方亦可提請修改時間表及討論架構。

參與仲裁程序的期望

仲裁委員會將會在立案時依證據認定當事方，並會按需通知用戶參與調查。獲通知用戶將有七天事件回應表明是否參與調查。

若當事方於通知後七天內未回應、拒絕參與以至退出維基百科，仲裁委員會有權在沒有該用戶參與下繼續調查程序。

提交證據

用戶提交證據時應簡明扼要。一般而言，當事各方的提交內容不應超過2000字和100個差異連結，其他用戶的提交內容則限制為1000個單字和50個差異連結。如有意提交超過限制的證據，則應先徵求主委批准。

提交的證據必須發佈在案件的「/證據」子頁面上；仲裁委員會將不會採納在用戶空間子頁面作為證據。未經批准而提交超長的證據可經委員會決議移除、重構或刪減。

仲裁决议的要素

仲裁员可以在案件的“/辩论”子页面上分四个方面发表其决议意见：

1. 基本原则：包括案件主要相关的方针、指引和社群共识。若有需求，仲裁员也可以加入仲裁委员会在案件背景下对方针、指引和社群共识的解读。
2. 事实认定：包括涉案用户与案件相关行为的描述。
3. 补救措施：包括仲裁委员会为解决案件而做出的命令。命令分为可强制执行的规定（如禁制）和不可强制执行的规定（如警告和提醒），其适用对象包括个别涉案用户、所有涉案用户以及所有做出特定行为或在特定主题编辑的用户。
4. 仲裁执行：包括对执行仲裁执行的管理员的指示，以及受补救措施约束的用户违反补救措施时应遵循的程序。

票决案件结论

所有决议意见将放置于“/拟议案件结论”子页面，并由仲裁员对每项意见进行票决。拟议案件结论将包括所有得绝对多数通过的决议意见。

关闭案件

在对拟议案件结论的票决结束后，仲裁员可提出正式的案件结论。案件结论需满足以下条件方可通过：

1. 同意比不同意净多四票；
2. 获得多数同意。

从案件结论获得第四张净同意票到采取任何补救措施，通常需要至少24小时的最后审议期。但若满足以下条件即可快速结案：

1. 所有决议意见均已通过；
2. 多数仲裁员同意跳过最后审议期。

驳回案件

仲裁委员会如果在案件中的任何时刻以多数同意认定：

1. 发布案件结论对于此案件无用；
2. 委员会无法达成案件结论上达成绝对多数支持；
3. 单条动议比完整的案件结论更适合。

那么仲裁委员会可以通过以动议结案、驳回案件或以其他方式处理案件。

撤回案件申请

如果申请仲裁案件的用户撤回该请求，并满足下列条件中任意一条，则该请求可在24小时后撤回：

1. 没有仲裁员开启受理投票；
2. 不同意比同意淨多四票

如不满足上述条件，案件申请应一直开放至满足上述条件的24小时后或案件根据“發起仲裁”段落所述由仲裁员接受或拒绝此案件。

活跃仲裁员和计票方式

活跃仲裁员

如果有仲裁员在7天内未有编辑或向仲裁委员会通知自己不会活跃于仲裁事务，则应将其列入不活跃仲裁员，不符合上述条件的则为活跃仲裁员。不活跃仲裁员可以通过编辑回归为活跃仲裁员，活跃仲裁员亦可通知仲裁委员会使其成为不活跃仲裁员。请注意在票决案件结论不会计入不活跃仲裁员的票。

计票方式

仲裁员的计票方式如下：

1. 未回避案件的活跃仲裁员皆可投一票；
2. 不计入回避案件、不活跃以及弃权的仲裁员的票数。

相关用语的含义如下：

• 多数同意: 同意票数占仲裁员总数的50%以上，不包括回避案件、不活跃以及弃权的仲裁员。

Ban appeals

Handling of ban appeals

Adopted on 12 May 2011

Amended on 15 November 2015

Amended on 14 February 2024

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 an Oversight 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 a CheckUser 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.

Appeals of topic bans

Adopted on 7 May 2011

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.

Enforcement

Changes of username while subject to enforcement

Adopted on 18 June 2009

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.

Logging

Adopted on 26 March 2017

Amended on 14 December 2022

All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Whenever a sanction or page restriction is appealed or modified, the administrator amending it must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry.

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 the Wikipedia 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 at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log.

Expectations of administrators

Adopted on 21 April 2017

Enforcing administrators are accountable and must explain their enforcement actions; and they must not be involved. 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.

Dismissing an enforcement request

Adopted on 21 April 2017

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.

Standard provision: enforcement of restrictions

Adopted on 4 June 2012.

Amended on 3 May 2014.

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:

"Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year."

Standard provision: appeals and modifications

Original version adopted on 15 March 2010.

Adopted on 03 May 2014.

Amended on 21 April 2017.

Amended on 13 December 2018.

Amended on 19 April 2019.

Amended on 18 January 2023

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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:

1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
3. submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

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.

Important notes

1. For a request to succeed, either
   1. the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
   2. a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
   is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
3. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Contentious topics

See also: Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

Extended confirmed restriction

Adopted on 20 September 2021

Amended on 11 November 2023

The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas. When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions:

1. The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:
   1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below.
   2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
2. If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required.
3. On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.
4. Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring.

Reliable source consensus-required restriction

Adopted on 4 January 2024

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 the Reliable 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.

Enforcement templates and procedural documents

Adopted on 14 December 2022

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).

Noticeboard scope

Adopted on 14 December 2022

The arbitration enforcement noticeboard may consider:

• requests for administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
• requests for an individual enforcement action against aware editors who engage in misconduct in a contentious topic,
• requests for page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in contentious topics,
• appeals against arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions), or
• requests or appeals pursuant to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure, if those requests or appeals are assigned to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard by the community.

For all other matters, including content disagreements or the enforcement of other community-imposed sanctions, editors should use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal decisions made directly by the Arbitration Committee, editors should submit a request for clarification or amendment.

Noticeboard outcomes

Adopted on 14 December 2022

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.

Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee

Adopted on 14 December 2022

A consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may refer an arbitration enforcement request to the Arbitration Committee for final decision through a request for amendment.

Incoming mail

Adopted on 2 May 2009

Amended on 15 November 2015 (reference to Ban Appeals Subcommittee removed)

The procedure for handling incoming mail to arbcom-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:

1. Complaints regarding CheckUser or Oversight use can be forwarded to the Arbitration Committee via the Arbitration Committee mailing list (arbcom-en). In the event of a committee member being the subject of the complaint, the complaint may be forwarded to any individual committee member. That committee member will initiate a discussion on one of the alternate mailing lists, with the committee member who is the subject of the complaint unsubscribed from the list for the duration of the discussion. Over the course of the investigation, the Arbitration Committee may draw upon the experience of members of the functionaries team to aid in the investigation.
2. Notifications of secondary and alternate accounts shall be recorded on the private wiki and closed; no further action shall be taken unless requested by an arbitrator.
3. Submissions of private evidence in an open case shall be recorded on the private wiki and closed; no further action shall be taken unless requested by an arbitrator.
4. Informational notifications and comments which are determined by the coordinating arbitrator or their deputy to require no further action from the Committee shall be closed; no further action shall be taken unless requested by an arbitrator.
5. All other messages shall be flagged for further action by the Committee.

Clerks

Terms

Adopted on 26 April 2022

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.

Motions

Modification of procedures

Adopted on 7 June 2012

Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page; shall be announced on the Committee's noticeboard and the administrator's noticeboard by the clerks when first proposed; and shall remain open for at least 24 hours after those announcements are made.

Committee resolutions

Adopted on 12 May 2011

The Committee will consider and adopt resolutions as follows:

1. All proposed resolutions will be posted for voting on the discussion board of the arbitration wiki.
2. The arbitrator initiating the proposal will notify arbcom-en of the proposal, and is responsible for sending any subsequent reminders as necessary.
3. A resolution will be considered to have passed when it is endorsed by an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators.
4. When a resolution has passed, it will be announced on arbcom-en.

Resolutions intended for public dissemination will be published to the Arbitration Committee noticeboard. Internal resolutions will be retained in the Committee's internal records.

Quorum for urgent resolutions

Adopted on 12 May 2011

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.

Requests for amendment

Format of requests for amendment

Adopted on 28 June 2009

A request for amendment of a closed case must clearly state the following:

(a) The name of the case to be amended;

(b) The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title;

(c) For each clause in (b), the desired modification; and

(d) The rationale for the requested amendment, comprising no more than 1000 words.

Any request which does not comply with these criteria will be summarily removed.

Closing

Adopted on 8 January 2023

A request for clarification or amendment is eligible to be closed by an arbitrator if:

1. A rough consensus has been reached among arbitrators participating in the request; and
2. The rough consensus does not require a vote to implement (e.g. modifying the remedy to a case).

The closing arbitrator should include a summary of the rough consensus when closing the request for clarification or amendment.