Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Final decision and afterwards: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:39, 8 May 2024

Latest revision as of 06:58, 4 August 2024

(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)

Line 18:

==Appealing and clarifying a decision==

Requests for clarifications and most appeals are made at the [[Project:ARCA|appeals and clarifications noticeboard]]. Editors can also request amendments to cases at that noticeboard, such as a request to add or remove an area as a '''contentious topic.''' As with other parts of the arbitration process, other editors may offer opinions and evidence about the request.

=== Appeals ===

Editing restrictions or sanctions are intended to prevent certain forms of conduct, and these preventative measures may last a long time. Appeals can be made for their reconsideration, but usually a track record is required, and [[recidivism]] is taken very seriously. Appeals of site bans must be made via email, while other appeals are done onwiki. The committee will sometimes seek feedback onwiki for site ban appeals.

Successful appeals demonstrate to the committee that the behavior which led to the restriction or sanction is unlikely to repeat. In the appeal, editors should demonstrate an understanding of what conduct led to the restriction or sanction and offer credible evidence about why it will not happen in the future. One way some editors do this This is by showing other productive editing on Wikipedia or a sister project.

===Clarifications===

Sometimes an element of a decision can be unclear. In this case editors can ask ArbCom to clarify the meaning or interpretation of a rule. This is normally closed by an arbitrator or clerk with a summary of the discussion. Most of the time no vote is required for clarifications,; however, at times ArbCom will decide to amend something if there is consensus that it is unclear or otherwise faulty.

<noinclude>{{../Glossary}}</noinclude>