Revision as of 12:28, 12 November 2013

• WP:ARCA

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

• Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
• Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

• Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
• In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
• Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
• Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
  • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
• Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
• Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
• Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
• Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
• Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

• Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
• Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
• Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
• Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

• WP:ARCA
• WP:ARA
• WP:A/R/C&A
• WP:A/R/CL
• WP:A/R/A
• WP:A/R/CA
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and .../Amendment

Clarification request:Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s topic ban on article creation

Initiated by Fram (talk) at 12:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s topic ban on article creation arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Link to relevant decision

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Carrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Fram

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (RAN for short) has been topic banned from creating articles. He has recently requested another user, Carrite, to move a few pages RAN recently created in his user space to the main space (see User talk:Carrite#Migration. It is unclear whether this violates his topic ban or not. Carrite was a party to the previous case so is presumably aware of the topic ban. Note; this is a request for clarification, no action against anyone involved is wanted here. Fram (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Clarification request: Kiefer.Wolfowitz banned

Initiated by —John Cline (talk) at 10:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz banned

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• John Cline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Richwales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Equazcion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nikkimaria (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

• The above users have been notified of this request as shown by the included links.—John Cline (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by John Cline

Richwales raised a question regarding Kiefer.Wolfowitz's talk page edits in relation to his Arbcom ban. Equazcion subsequently posted the incident at wp:ani which erupted into a discussion without the potential for consensus. Eventually Beyond My Ken reverted Kiefer's talk page inclusion of an Arbcom voters guide which Kiefer reverted with the following edit summary: "talk page guidelines prohibit such arbitrary action. take it to Arbitration committee enforcement, and stop acting like a cowboy". Most users commenting seem to agree that this matter should be decided by the Committee, as do I. Curiously, Nikkimaria added Kiefer's voter guide to {{ACE2013}} which in my opinion, strains the spirit and letter of our banning policy. Please tell me if Kiefer's talk page edits are acceptable in concert with his ban and evaluate Nikkimaria's decision to link his content in such fashion as has been shown. Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Equazcion

As I said at ANI (which I now realize was the wrong venue for this), if a user is banned, it was already determined that they shouldn't be involved in the project (for whichever amount of time was specified). That they confine any further attempts technically to userspace shouldn't be a loophole. Talk page access is allowed for banned users merely to allow discussion relating to their ban (as is my understanding), and while practice tends to allow some leniency for benign chatter with former colleagues, clear attempts at further project involvement is an abuse of that leniency, and shouldn't be allowed. It leaves the door open for us to have to make a second determination regarding userspace content, when the spirit of the ban was to have already been a prohibition on their continued involvement. equazcion → 11:02, 12 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves

One of the most common RFA questions used to be "What is the difference between a ban and a block?" The most acceptable answer was some version of this:

A block is a technical restriction, designed to prevent disruption, whereas a ban is a community-determined restriction on editing, often in specific areas. A block may be used to enforce a ban.

In others words, a ban is a socially-derived action, and as per WP:BANPOL:

"An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Misplaced Pages, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances", with the sole exception of appeals.

KW has edited their talkpage significantly since their ban, contrary to WP:BANPOL. Creating an ArbCom voting guide is an attempt to influence Misplaced Pages policy, well outside the socially-induced ban. One could question his motives as well...is there an element of WP:POLEMIC to "get back at" those who banned him? Is it a way of electing Arbs who are sympathetic to his cause? The sole remedy is to remove the voting guide, revoke talkpage access and move forward - let KW back into the community when he's willing to follow the rules ES&L 11:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Kiefer.Wolfowitz

This statement was posted by Kiefer.Wolfowitz to his talk page and was copied here by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) at 12:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC).

The community runs Arbitration Committee elections and does so by its RfCs, which occur following discussion of the immediately preceding election and at the RfC before the election. The election rules require that candidates be in good standing; they do not require that guide writers be in good standing (not even in good standing with the Arbitration Committee).

Richwales has explicitly written that he has a conflict of interest because my guide discusses limitations of his candidacy. In the past, for example in the case of Pennywhale, the Arbitration Committee has allowed banned editors freedom on their talk pages, including criticism of ArbCom decisions.

Secondly, Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) was entitled to add my guide to the election template, per the RfC rules, which again do not require that guide writers be in good standing. (C.f., WP:I don't like it.)

Finally, this is the second time in a month that John Cline (talk · contribs) (formerly My76Strat (talk · contribs)) has left messages on this talk page, despite having been requested many times previously to stop. Would an administrator please remind him of the talk-page policy?

My daughter has a 38.9 C fever because of teething, and I doubt I have time to respond further.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• I've informed Kiefer.Wolfowitz that if he'd like to make a statement he can make in his talk page and someone will copy it over to here for him. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse Worm(talk) 10:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Recuse on this specific issue  Roger Davies 12:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)