Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:52, 18 March 2011 view sourceJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,284 edits →Statement by {Party 5}: Note← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:17, 21 January 2025 view source Primefac (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators210,285 edits →IBAN Request: remove case, has been cross-posted to WP:AE in Special:Diff/1270861907 as the proper venueTag: Replaced 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}}
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude>
{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}}
= <includeonly>]</includeonly> =
</noinclude>
<br clear="all"/>
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}} <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude>
{{NOINDEX}}

{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}}

<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
== Duke53 ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] <sup>/]/</sup> '''at''' 07:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Alanyst}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|Duke53}}
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*

;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]

=== Statement by Alanyst ===
Duke53, an editor of 5+ years, has been a source of disruptive conflict in multiple subject areas for nearly all of his editing history. I ask the committee to examine his behavior.

Duke53 joined Misplaced Pages in late 2005. Spring 2006 saw his , and later conflicts erupted around such subjects as Duke University and its rivals, a natural history museum in New York state, and Mormonism. In each of these topic areas Duke53 holds a strong personal opinion and has treated editors who do not share his opinion, or who obstruct his efforts to make Misplaced Pages a platform for his views, as adversaries to be fought, ridiculed, or bullied. Read his talk page and userpage for a sampling of his behavior.

I am one of several long-time editors in the Mormonism topic area (being a Mormon myself) who has had conflict with Duke53 dating back several years. He has expressed special contempt for Mormons in general, and Mormon editors of Misplaced Pages in particular.

Dispute resolution has been attempted in various venues through the years: ] ], and , and on sundry article and user talk pages. There has not been a recent RfC, and if this request is rejected it will probably be due to that fact. But I feel that arbitration is appropriate because of these factors:
# Experience from the first RfC, which expired without resolution partly because few outside opinions were given, shows it is hard to find neutral editors willing to attempt to resolve disputes involving religious topics or long-term chronic behavior.
# Duke53 rejects criticism of his behavior, so an RfC will not resolve the problem unless it gets enough input from neutral parties to form a consensus for community sanctions. It could end up being a waste of time like the first one.
# Duke53 has asserted that Mormon editors have conspired against editors critical of Mormonism in order to dominate the topic area. This is an effective counter to Mormon editors' complaints about him because sanctioning him would be feared as playing into the hands of the conspiracy. Such claims deserve to be examined by a neutral body so that either the clique be uncovered and dispersed, or else the accusation be refuted as an unmerited slur. An RfC on Duke53 is unlikely to accomplish this.

If this request is accepted, I will provide evidence for problematic behaviors including:
* POV pushing, disruption to make a point, and battleground behavior
* Willingness to violate BLP
* Initiation and exacerbation of conflict
* Vindictiveness
* Biting newcomers
* Refusal to compromise or accept correction
* ] issues
] <sup>/]/</sup> 08:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

'''@Casliber:''' Why now? That's a fair question. This may in fact be long overdue, and I have contemplated whether to bring this to arbitration for a long time now. I held back because (a) arbitration can be a time sink, (b) I kept hoping a neutral party would intervene so it wouldn't just appear as a vendetta by Mormons against an anti-Mormon, and (c) I tried to give him every chance to change his ways. The final straw for me was to see him taunting an editor who has made every effort to respect the opposing POV and deal with him in good faith, to the point that the editor (BFizz) started to lose his cool. (See ] and ].) I felt it was time for the relentless bullying to stop, lest we lose an editor who has tried to reach across the divide. ] <sup>/]/</sup> 14:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Also, regarding the evidence: the Wikiquette alert is from December 2010, though confusingly it starts with quoted material (including timestamps) from 2007, making it appear at first glance as a stale dispute. ] <sup>/]/</sup> 18:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===

I really don't have a whole lot of time to waste on this, but anybody who gets involved in this might take note of Alanyst's posting history. It is very evident that the one thing that is guaranteed to draw him to post at WP anymore is my participation in articles. It's almost as if he has cast himself as a modern day ] of the lds church here at Misplaced Pages. No matter how long his absences here are, if I post at an lds article he's sure to follow.

Next, you will also notice a bunch of familiar faces showing up to bolster his accusations: Bfizz, Routerone, Canadiandy (<I>if he doesn't post under one of his alter egos, which are numerous</i>) and Storm Rider. There is also a newer bunch from byu, who were quick to pick up the habit of meatpuppetry and swarming in their 'debut' at WP. They don't much like it when I mention 'swarming' or 'tag-teaming', but as my Grandmother used to say: "<I>The proof is in the pudding</I>" <font face="raphael" color="green">] | <sup>]</sup></font> 08:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===

In all my online interactions I have never been singled out, taunted, criticized, and ridiculed by anyone as much as I have been by Duke53. Misplaced Pages behavioral guidelines suggest that we focus on the edit and not on the editor. Duke53 often focuses his fire on editors.

His common method of irritating me is by twisting my words: exaggerating them or applying them to something I obviously did not intend. A few examples:

Applying my reasoning in an absurd fashion

*
*
*

Additionally, rudely parodying my signature

*

Rudely parodying my old signature

*

There are more instances of similar behavior towards me that you can find in his edit history. I understand that sometimes it is appropriate to extend another editor's reasoning to a different domain in order to help them understand why you disagree with them, but if you inspect Duke53's edits, they appear (to me) to be confrontational assertions rather than an attempt to reach understanding.

I am not the only one Duke apparently despises; he appears to consider all 'tbms' as enemies that 'gang up' against him. He has exhibited similar behavior towards editors such as ], ], and newcomers.

I find Duke53's editing at Misplaced Pages to frequently be provocative and counterproductive. I feel that achieving NPOV takes creativity and willingness to compromise; Duke53 rarely exhibits willingness to compromise, and rarely employs his creativity for anything but pushing his particular POV. <small title="Click the F">...comments?</small> ~]'']]'' 16:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by Storm Rider===
I am not a perfect editor and this particular editor is an easy one for me to go off on, which I have done often. He is wholly and completely dedicated to being unhelpful and disruptive. His entire edit history is one long example of exactly what he as been accused. I know it takes time, but it would be useful to go through all of his 3,772 edits in order to grasp the magnitude of his disruptiveness.

It is true that he is not a very active editor and has never been very active. An editor who begins in 2005 and only has 3,772 edits is evidence that he is not dedicated to this process. However, lack of edits is not a sufficient reason to delay action. His behavior has never changed; he is the same editor he started out as without any improvement. He is spiteful, vindictive, opinionated, and narrow-minded. Worse, he demands that his opinion is the only correct reference, position, context, and tone to use in articles within his interest.

I have long since believed that after a short probationary period to determine the ability of an editor, being a Misplaced Pages editor is a privilege and not a right. Duke should have long since lost this privilege. -<sup>]</sup>] 07:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by Jehochman===

Just to note that I have reviewed this matter and will be blocking Duke53 shortly. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/1/1/0) ===
*'''Accept''' <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 10:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''<s>Question''' for alanyst - why now? Much of this evidence is old, although the userpage for deletion has just passed (February '11), much of ther material is 2006-07 (and early-mid 2010).</s> '''accept''' - needs a review by us I think to sort this out. ] (] '''·''' ]) 10:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Recuse''' - I took part in the first MfD and also the RfC. ] (]) 22:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Accept'''. Sounds like this needs sorting out. --] (]) 22:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' Given the age of the RfC/U, I would expect an updated RfC/U before accepting this. The community has a much better recent track record in dealing with single, disruptive editors than it did a few years ago. ] (]) 22:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

== Disruption at ] article and talkpage ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 21:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
* {{admin|LessHeard vanU}}, ''filing party''
* {{admin|SilkTork}}
* {{userlinks|Andreasegde}}
* {{userlinks|Bluewave}}
* {{userlinks|Steelbeard1}}
* {{userlinks|Wrapped in Grey}}
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
* {{diff|User talk:SilkTork|418855232|418833057|SilkTork}}
* {{diff|User talk:Andreasegde|418855338|416205535|Andreasegde}}
* {{diff|User talk:Andreasegde|418855338|416205535|Bluewave}}
* {{diff|User talk:Steelbeard1|418855644|418802384|Steelbeard1}}
* {{diff|User talk:Wrapped in Grey|418855931|414511399|Wrapped in Grey}}

; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
* ] (the most recent installment)
* ] (May 2010)
* ] (December 2009 – February 2010)
* ] (May–June 2009&nbsp;– the last "big" discussion)
* ] and subsequent sections. August 2008, August 2008, ], August 2008, ], and August 2008.
* ] and subsequent sections. January–February '''2006''', April to June 2006, December 2006 to February 2007, and February 2007, February 2007 (again), February 2007 (ibid), February 2007 (hmmm...), February (zzzz...), and February 2007... March 2007, March 2007 again but with a little April thrown in. In May 2007 the project was effectively closed down.

=== Statement by LessHeard vanU ===

I am making a simple Request, that ArbCom determine who is being disruptive in the ongoing dispute regarding whether the band (or group...) should be titled The Beatles or the Beatles within sentences in the article. Are the editors who insist that the Manual of Style guideline should be followed disruptive in attempting changing the text in the article, or are the editors who maintain that the local consensus for capitalising the definitive article still remains disruptive in reverting any attempt. This is not in regard to the content dispute, which ArbCom cannot and will not address, but the actions of two groups of editors and a long running battle. ] (]) 22:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
* It is my intention, should it appear that the Request may succeed, to example further instances of the stalemated discussions and the edit warring on the article page – going back years. I will necessarily increase the list of parties. In response to SilkTork, this most recent series of actions and reverts is only the most recent incident. Either one party or the other is acting inappropriately in continuing the dispute, and I see no evidence the issue is going to reach consensus. ] (]) 23:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
::@Jclemens. Outside comments upon the disruption arising from the dispute? – there is none. Requests for outside comments upon the issue of capitalising the definitive article? – Perhaps, but even if there has been no RfC there has been an awful lot of discussion involving very many parties over the years and the result has been a calcification of opinions between two groups. I suggest that any "light" dispute resolution process will be equally stalemated. ] (]) 23:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
:::I have gone through the archives and noted every discussion section regarding the issue – including a couple of straw polls, but no RfC. I suppose it is entirely possible to run a RfC in the very near future, requesting everybody read all of the linked previous discussions, and have the same names come up with the same reasons as previous, and possibly have one or two new accounts side with one group or another, and come to the same stalemate as has all the previous attempts (one group believing they have consensus via guideline, one group believing they keep the local consensus). I, or someone else, will then have to think up a new non content rationale to bring this <u>disruptive and long term</u> dispute to ArbCom – so hopefully the matter can be settled and everyone get back to writing the article. ] (]) 22:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
:::@Elen of the Roads. Can you point to where I have asked for a ruling on the content? I am asking for a ruling on the disruption engendered by parties over a content dispute. I would like to think that my point has been read and understood - even if still rejected. ] (]) 14:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===
Too soon for ArbCom. There has been a discussion; an attempt to implement an action, which was reverted; and a request posted for further input less than an hour ago – ]. If the community is unable to resolve the matter, or there is clear evidence of inappropriate conduct, then ArbCom should get involved, but this is too early. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">] *]</span> 22:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Hans Adler ===
Obviously this dispute doesn't belong here. However, now that coin flipping has come up I feel forced to mention that the question of capitalising the mid-sentence article or not is answered uniformly for the encyclopedia by ] and more specifically by ].

The current practice at the article does not follow the general practice and in fact predates it. As far as I can tell all arguments for not bringing the article in line with the MOS are of the following types or very similar:
* This has been brought up numerous times before and always failed.
* There is a consensus not to change things, and disagreeing with it is disruptive.
* The trademark uses a capital T.

I am amazed that LHvU has the cheek to bring this here under the circumstances. A quick motion on whether local consensus at an article can override a style guideline for no valid reason at all might not be such a bad idea. (In my personal opinion the requirements for such overriding should be very low, but not zero.) ] ] 00:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Steelbeard1 ===
This has been discussed time and time again and the long standing consensus has been to refer to the band in question as "The Beatles" in running text as that is the name of that band as well as a registered trade mark owned by Apple Corps Ltd. The article's talk page is full of lengthy discussions in both the current page and on archived pages of which links can be found. ] (]) 00:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding statements saying that this qualifies as ], if you look up the ] link, it is already listed. ] (]) 19:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Bluewave ===
There has been a long-running argument about whether the band is correctly called The Beatles or the Beatles. For some time, there has been a consensus that reliable sources favour 'The', in contrast to some other bands like the Rolling Stones that don't. The article has been stable in using "The Beatles' for a similar length of time. The present discussion has been about whether a MOS preference for 'the' in band names overrides the previous consensus, even if the band's name actually is 'The Beatles'. Wrapped in Grey stated the case for adopting MOS {{diff|Talk:The Beatles|next|410968268|(diff)}}; I made the counter case – namely that matters of style don't trump matters of substance. {{diff|Talk:The Beatles|prev|411038345|(diff)}} This was debated with no consensus being reached. There was then a further debate about whether a lack of consensus should lead us to adopt MOS or to go with the older consensus! This debate didn't reach a consensus either.

The participants have largely been experienced editors of good-standing and I don't believe anyone has been wilfully disruptive, but I accept that the overall effect of this long-running and rather pointless dispute '''is''' disruptive, though it has largely been restricted to the talk page...I don't myself recall ever having edited the article regarding this matter. Yesterday, it did spill over into the article, with one editor clearly believing that he had a mandate to change all instances of 'The' to 'the' (mid sentence), while others, like me, felt there was certainly no consensus to take this action.
Again, this was not a major piece of disruption by any individual or group but, equally, the dragging on of this issue '''is''' disruptive. There is no compromise position on 'the' versus 'The', so it will never be resolved by consensus. If we were in a pub, I'd suggest we ] for it. Please somebody toss a coin.
:I have just re-read LessHeard vanU who speaks of edit warring on the article page – going back years. I don't think I was aware of this. Perhaps I am mistaken in thinking this is essentially a talk page dispute. ] (]) 13:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved Collect ===

This case is just over two weeks too early to be considered. WP usage does not require "The" to be capitalized – hence this is a purely trivial content dispute at best. It is interesting that ''the beatles'' did not even use "The" for their album "Beatles for Sale", the NYT does not use "The" as one example, and this is one of the least worthwhile discussions ever held on WP. In my opinion. ] (]) 14:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris ===
This is a longstanding but absolutely pointless dispute due squarely to the rigidity of people who insist on adhering to trademark formalities. (I note in passing that the Beatles authorized biography does not capitalize "the," nor do later works by Beatles expert and personal friend Mark Lewisohn.) In a few months the dispute will have lasted longer than the group's recording career. I'm tempted to suggest that LHvU be given a mild reprimand for wasting the Committee's time on asinine matters such as this, but the overblown dispute is amusing as an example of ]. ] (]) 15:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
=== Statement by uninvolved Wehwalt ===
Pure content dispute, even with recent trends to find "conduct" lurking in every content dispute. Suggest it be declined.

@Elen, the triviality of WP disputes compared with the harsh realities of real life apply to ''even the cases you accept''. This is what you signed up for. Sorry.--] (]) 16:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved GoodDay ===
This is certainly a candidate for ]. Howabout using '''<small>THE</small> BEATLES''', per what's roughly on Starr's drums. Anyways, Lennon's having to explain the spelling of Beatles with an ''a'', pales in comparison to this. ] (]) 19:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
:This edit war has been listed at ] for over ''three years''. Pretty soon somebody's going to try to capitalize the "T" in "Beatles" again. --] (]) 01:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:::You mean like "the BeaTles"? ] (]) 13:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
::::On the drum set, it's all in capital letters, with the ''T'' being longer & hanging below the other letters in BEATLES. ] (]) 18:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
::Makes me think of a song ''"You've got to hide your reverts away"''. ] (]) 03:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Andreasegde ===
The problem will always be that "The group called '''The Beatles''' once performed in Paris, but '''the Beatles''' who went there on holiday were McCartney and Lennon".--] (]) 12:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/1) ===
* '''Comment''' Can you please clarify where external community input has been sought? I see multiple discussions on the talk page listed, but don't see any of them reflecting a closed RfC or anything of the sort. ] (]) 22:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
**'''Decline''' while conversations have been going on for years, I don't see 1) the failure of escalating DR steps, or 2) gross user conduct violations that would justify skipping such steps. Medcom, anyone? ] (]) 07:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' Japan has just been wiped out by earthquake and tidal wave, and you guys are arguing about a capital T? Can't you just do rock/paper/scissors or something? Seriously, I cannot see how this can be anything but a content dispute, and a very simple one at that. --] (]) 23:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
**'''Decline ''' Not ruling on content. Get more involvement from the community. --] (]) 13:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
* '''Decline'''. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 23:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
* Awaiting statements, although my initial impression is that Jclemens and Elen have described the situation to a T. If we do accept the case, I shall supervise an official coin-flip to avoid edit-wars regarding whether we do or don't capitalize the casename. ] (]) 23:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
** But wouldn't pistols at 10 paces be more in tune with the tone of the dispute? ] (]) 02:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
* '''Decline''' – it needs an RfC and ''broad'' community input. Preferably well-structured to give a clear-cut decision. ] (] '''·''' ]) 04:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
* '''Decline''' – I feel like this kind of ]-worthy content dispute would have to go pretty far before we dealt with it. There are still avenues of DR to be tried. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> 13:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
* '''Decline'''; much can still be done to solve this before our intervention becomes justified. Certainly, a community consultation should take place as a first step. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 11:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
* '''Decline''' per above. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 12:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:17, 21 January 2025

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC. Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Palestine-Israel articles 5 23 Jan 2025
Clarification and Amendment requests
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: American politics 2 none (orig. case) 15 January 2025
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal none none 23 January 2025
Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Shortcuts

About this page

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.


File an arbitration request


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-l@lists.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

  • This page is for statements, not discussion.
  • Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
  • Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
  • Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
  • After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
  • Declined case requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions Add topic