Revision as of 21:12, 8 February 2013

• 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: APPEAL OF SUMMARY REVERT AND BLOCK OF INFOBOX RESULT CONTINUATION WAR, also for WARNING on user talk page

Initiated by Paavo273 at Fut.Perf. ☼

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

• Paavo273 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Fut.Perf. ☼ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by user Paavo273

I request that the content actions of administrator and the warning to me by Fut.Perf. ☼ be reversed. The content action appears to me to be outside the scope of unilateral administrator action. However, *IF* the committee determines that this is allowable action by an administrator, I ask for a hearing *on the merits* of Fut.Perf.'s content decision. What I mean is if this is proper administrator conduct, I ask that the committee consider the evidence on which the decision should have been based. I don't believe Fut.Pef. has fairly evaluated the material, nor correctly summarized what has taken place on the talk page. Namely, I believe no consensus was ever formed and some other users agree with this position. Next, the most heavy-handed part of the administrator's decision involves his summarily making a "binding" content decision that the sources do reflect Soviet victory as alleged by the editors supporting this position. *I humbly ask that the committee evaluate the actual sources in the article, including the ones I added about a week ago,* or state some other basis for making such a decision and make a review on that other clearly-articulated basis. Overall, there is no consensus, and the Soviet-victory-oriented sources versus non-Soviet-oriented sources was never analyzed. I am only asking for the committee's review within the narrow content-decision of Fut.Perf. It is in my opinion, a rogue editorial action by the administrator. I further think it is offensive that this admin. links from his user page to an article "rouge administrator"; is it constructive or within the spirit of WP to mock people who cannot spell? I also humbly submit that user comments from users (regardless of the educational level) who only assert their position without providing meaningful grounds for it is not a proper grounds for deciding content disputes--specifically this content dispute decided unilaterally and without relevant input by Fut.Perf. Respectfully submitted Paavo273 (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion