This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FT2 (talk | contribs) at 07:45, 1 September 2007 (→Common case handling practices: fix wording in #3 and #4). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:45, 1 September 2007 by FT2 (talk | contribs) (→Common case handling practices: fix wording in #3 and #4)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This page is meant to provide further information covering how arbitration cases are handled once accepted, including practices that have evolved over time. This is so that editors with an interest in a case can gain a better understanding of how certain matters are commonly approached, and the historic rationale for certain decisions.
However, note that the Arbitration Committee is not bound by precedent.
Common case handling practices
- Cases are allowed to take considerable time, even if (apparently) obvious. This is because often over time, if allowed to stand, new material will be added that otherwise would not have come to light. For this reason an arbitration case will often be allowed to stand open for a number of weeks, to ensure maximal opportunity for new information to be added.
- Material correctly posted is usually allowed to stand, even if one of the parties is using the arbitration pages as a platform for personal attack or misrepresentation. Behavior at arbitration can be, and is, part of the evidence, and both sides will usually be allowed to present their evidence in full, and at length. (See #1)
- Caveat 1: evidence of a genuinely sensitive nature is still subject to WP:OVERSIGHT, or may be presented by email directly,
- Caveat 2: posts on arbitration pages may be refactored or reorganized by the clerks, to keep them short, correctly presented, and to the point.
- Content issues are not normally considered. The Arbitration Committee is established to look at conduct rather than content issues.
- The committee may at times cap its own bans at one year. This can seem confusing when a party has caused significant disruption, but is not as restrictive as it may seem. In such cases, the extension of a years ban or its conversion to an indefinite ban is being left for future and to the community. At a simple level, everyone can reform, and everyone is given that chance. However, the community will take note of the years' ban, and those who fail to reform will often find that the opportunity for disruption is quite limited upon returning. Usually the community reblocks unrepentant disruptive editors for repetition fairly soon after returning, and fairly rapidly they may become indefinitely banned. Those who choose to breach their years ban will fall foul of sock puppet policy and likewise meet the same fate.
- Not all issues need a ruling. Arbitration decisions tend to focus on the main issues, and the conduct involved, and allow the rest of the arbitration pages to speak for themselves in that light (See #1). If an involved party thinks a serious issue is being ignored, then this is best queried on the talk page of the appropriate discussion page, or checked with the clerk of the case who may be able to provide useful explanation.