Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia 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 01:24, 24 September 2012 editJclemens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,423 edits →Arbitrator views and discussion: awaiting statements← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators57,989 edits →Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal: remove archived requestTag: Replaced 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude>
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment|]}} =
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}


<includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>
== Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles ==
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
'''Initiated by ''' <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> '''at''' 21:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
]
]
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|AnkhMorpork}} (initiator)
*{{admin|Timotheus Canens}}
<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator.
Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed,
immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here.
The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected.
-->
=== Statement by AnkhMorpork ===
After a spate of edit-warring at ] in which material was repeatedly added and removed on ] grounds, Timotheus Canens unilaterally imposed restrictions to address this.

* '''The restrictions''' - They include: '''''No editor''' may '''add''' or readd '''any''' alleged instance of a conspiracy theory, unless such addition or readdition has been proposed on this talk page at least 48 hours in advance, and either no objection was made to adding or readding the content or an uninvolved administrator determines that there is a consensus to add or readd the content."''

* '''Problem 1''' - The restrictions have been applied to '''all''' editors adding '''any''' content. This will have the effect of precluding good-faith article expansion. Instead, the restrictions could have been targeted at adding material '''previously contested''' which would achieve the same result but would not have such wide-felt repercussions on acceptable contributions, now onerously circumscribed.
* '''Problem 2''' - The restrictions have been unequally applied and this will affect the balance of the article. Although stymieing any expansion of the article, no restraints have been placed on editors that wish to remove long-standing material from the article. Any editor can now remove all the material from the article, citing spurious policy grounds (so no vandalism defense), and nobody will be able to reinsert it.
* '''Problem 3''' - Imposing article restrictions is the purview of Arbcom. T Canens that he was imposing these "under the authority of ]".
:These discretionary sanctions explicitly state: ''"Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on '''users''' editing in this topic area."'' T Canens has extended the ambit of '''user sanctions''' to include '''article restrictions'''. That the sanctions apply to user misconduct is readily apparent when reading ].

:He referred to ] as a precedent. In that instance, no 1rr applied to the Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles and Arbcom clarified that '''1rr''' could be applied. In this case, all I-P related articles were '''already''' under 1rr restrictions, and the slanted, stringent restrictions imposed are wholly unprecedented.

:Moreover, these restrictions were '''unilaterally''' imposed by T Canens '''without any previous admin discussion''' or consensus regarding them.

* '''Conclusion''' - I request that these restrictions are tightened to remedy imbalances and allow for article expansion, and that T Canen's authority to make such restrictions is examined. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 21:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


:'''@AGK''' - There is one more thing to consider. T Canens imposed these restrictions in response to AN3 report detailing a 1rr violation. Can you comment whether you consider these restrictions an equitable remedy.
:More importantly, would you consider either extending these restrictions to cover existing content or minimizing them to allow the addition of previously undisputed content?

=== Statement by AndyTheGrump ===
Can I suggest that since the '' Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict)'' article is clearly in violation of at least the spirit of WP:ARBPIA rulings in that it is nothing more than a collection of anecdotes cobbled together to 'make Arabs look stupid', ] is invoked, the article is summarily deleted and salted, and the warring parties get back to arguing about something a little less infantile than this petty little propaganda piece... ] (]) 21:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:The article was previously nominated for deletion, and with flying colors, along with many admins agreeing it should be kept. It is false to assume that the point is to "make Arabs look stupid." I don't think either of us are mind-readers, and it wouldn't be right to characterize some of the neutral admins and editors on that AfD as voting for an article to "make Arabs look stupid." The article already survived an AfD - consensus has been established that it should be kept, and the article shouldn't simply be deleted. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']]'''</small> 21:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Fluffernutter ===
I'm not involved in I/P or AE in general, but I saw this go by earlier today and attempted to clarify this matter a bit to Ankh on talk. My explanation doesn't seem to have done the job. To my linked explanation, I'll just add that the description provided for ] appears to be deliberately broad, encompassing things like revert restrictions, topic bans, mandated external review (which is very similar to what T.C. has imposed wrt Ankh's "Problem 1"), ''as well as'' "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project". We're not intended to be bound strictly by exactly what words are used in the DS decription, because the DS description provides the, er, discretionary area of "any other measures." This means that opposing these sanctions on the basis of "restrictions can only be on people, not articles" is missing the point. Admin judgment is deferred to, within reasonable limits, in placing these measures, and there's nothing in what T. Canens has done here that looks particularly unacceptable (though I will admit to having had to read the restrictions twice to parse exactly who was being restricted from what). ] (]) 22:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

===Statement by The Devil's Advocate===
Honestly, I think the restriction is a bit too restrictive under the circumstances. The problem was with material being added that did not make any claim of the accusations being conspiracy theories. I think the requirement for discussion of any addition is restricting all editors and all content work for something that is a little more focused. At issue is specifically whether the additions involved conspiracy theories as no reliable sources provided used that description in any sense. Should reliable sources clearly cover a relevant incident as a conspiracy theory then I fail to see why discussion would be necessary on whether to include it in the article. If the material undeniably fits then requiring discussion is little more than bureaucratic regulation for its own sake.--] (]) 23:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:One of the sources described it as a myth. Is the exact wording "conspiracy theory" needed in the reference? --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']]'''</small> 23:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::The term "myth" does not inherently imply a conspiracy theory. In the instance you mention, it was basically a fisherman's tale about reckless and negligent Israeli conduct on the seas.--] (]) 00:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===
: ''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Well, the labeled "problem 3" is not a problem at all. Admins have always and authority to issue special rules in discretionary sanctions to make articles work, a long-standing precedent has been imposing 1RR under their authority. The restrictions imposed here look reasonable to me, and we aren't going to direct an article deletion. ] 22:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
*The restrictions T. Canens applied are complex but sound. In response to the complainant's three arguments: 1) suggested edits simply now require additional scrutiny; they are not discouraged nor prevented. 2) If the new restrictions are inadequate, I suggest you ask an enforcing administrator to extend them. I agree that existing content is not restricted, but I can't say whether that was an obvious omission or by design. 3) Plainly, these restrictions are authorised by standard discretionary sanctions (they regulate user conduct, not article content), and T. Canens acted sensibly and within the limits of the remedy. If there is nothing else to consider, I would dismiss this complaint. ] ]] 23:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
*Awaiting more statements. I'm sure there are plenty of other observers who can comment on how things have been applied in this case, vs. other discretionary sanction areas. ] (]) 01:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

----

== Clarification request: Date delinking ==

'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 18:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)<br/>
'''Summarily re-opened by the Arbitration Committee''' per . ] ]] 20:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Gimmetoo}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Ohconfucius}}
=== Statement by Gimmetoo ===
As a result of ] in ], Ohconfucius editing of date-related material is subject to the jurisdiction of the arbitration committee, though it is unclear what provisions could be used for enforcement.

This clarification concerns two issues.

First, I and others have attempted to get User:Ohconfucius to follow ] and stop removing YYYY-MM-DD format dates. This has been ongoing for more than a year, involving ANI and User talk:Ohconfucius. For a recent example: , where the accessdates were 100% consistent in YYYY-MM-DD format, and the references used a style directly listed by ] as acceptable. A pattern of similar edits amounts to an attempted ].

Second, User:Ohconfucius also uses a script that sometimes removes a number of accessdates. Ohconfucius was notified of this on 8 June 2012, and made similar edits after (See ]. I noticed that this same behaviour is still ongoing.

Could the commitee clarify the arbcom enforcement of these behaviours?

=== Statement by Ohconfucius===
*Let me fix the problems on the articles and at the source, and I will reply later. --<small>] ]</small> 07:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

*Given the trouble that ISO access dates have been causing, I am prepared to start a new regime of editing in relation to dates – one that is more conservative so as to avoid complaints. I would undertake not to touch them from now on, either manually or by script, until a new consensus is reached on them. As part of the problem was due to uncorrected script bugs, I also pledge to exercise greater diligence to scrutinise test and modify the MOSNUM scripts, and to rectify any reported errors as soon as possible.<p>I believe it's not worth arguing this one out, and hope that the community resolves the matters in its own time. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small><sup>]</sup> 01:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
*Because of family matters, I decided to resign on 12 July; shocked and demoralised by the FLG2 case, I had decided that the Ohconfucius account was too tainted if ever I made a comeback. So yes, it was a conscious decision to use another account I had created. I made using the account since my reurn, quite a few of which were substantive content edits; I did indeed also make some date-related edits, and I regret the impression created that I was trying to avoid detection. I would reiterate the object for me was to avoid using the Ohconfucius account if at all possible.<p>The Smalleditor account a declared alternative account. And upon returning, I started using it exclusively. But I decided that I would not want the complexities of the scripts' migration affecting many files and many users. For personal reasons, my level of activity is and shall remain very much less than the volume of contribution I made in the past. My current activity, as Ohconfucius, is to improve the functionality of the scripts under my control; the mainspace edits, whilst affecting dates, actually span the entire MOS. Edits have been limited in number &ndash; I save but a small fraction of those I actually test on, as a record of the scripts' progress. I took the unblock to mean that my the undertaking in my email to Arbcom has been acceptable. As noted in my email(s) to arbcom, I now no longer change accessdates &ndash; the dates script has been modified to that effect. I have not made any substantive edits in mainspace since. I am open to suggestions from Arbcom as to how I might re-establish trust in my good behaviour going forwards. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small><sup>]</sup> 08:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Rich Farmbrough ===
The principle behind DATERET (we have an acronym for that now?) was primarily focussed on dates with written months. The use of "ISO" dates has been discussed extensively, and it appears a number of otherwise sane and well-informed Wikipedians had never run across the format before, and were confused, mystified and dismayed by it. For myself this reduced my support for such dates for access date fields from firm to dubious. Nonetheless proper usability statistics should be gathered before coming to a firm conclusion on this, and in general it should be noted that OhConfucious' efforts in this sphere are reasonably well thought out and carefully implemented. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>01:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC).</small><br />

=== Statement by Arthur Rubin ===
Ohconfucius seems to have retired. I suppose this request should be suspended or dropped. I ''strongly'' disagree with Rich's statement that OhConfucious's efforts are "reasonably well thought out and carefully implemented", but ] seems to apply here. — ] ] 15:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by JimWae ===
I bring to attention again that the script OhC has constructed (& that is used by numerous others) has a function to change any and ALL dates to MDY or DMY, but has no function to change any dates at all (specifically neither accessdates nor archivedates) to YMD. As more people use this tool, inevitably there can only be further violations of ] for accessdates and archivedates as people use the tool without first fully examining WP guidelines that allow YMD for those dates. I submit that either 1> changing accessdates & archivedates ''to'' YMD be ''added'' to the script, ''OR'' 2> changes to any accessdates and archivedates be entirely ''removed'' from the script, ''OR'' 3> the script be ''retired''. --] (]) 21:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===
: ''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*The way I'm reading the most recent motion, "this subject remains within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee" is simply a reminder that the Committee retains the authority to further amend his restrictions (or current lack thereof) should we feel it is necessary to do so; or in extreme cases open a full case or review. As (by the same motion) Ohconfucius is not currently subject to any Arbitration remedies/restrictions with respect to date delinking, any concerns with regards to that behavior should likely be handled through normal community procedures, and not via Arbitration Enforcement. However, if you feel that matters are becoming problematic enough that the community is unable to adequately enforce matters, an amendment request could be posted to attempt to (further) amend his restrictions. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 19:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
*Agree with Hersfold. ''']''' ''']''' 22:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
**Ohconfucious has not edited Misplaced Pages since July 3, and there is a notice on his talkpage that he is on a break. As the concern here is the functionality of his date script, and I see from his talkpage that there have been concerns with his script for some time, perhaps people who use the script could be advised that there is a script by Lightmouse - ] - which appears to do the same thing, but doesn't appear to have reported problems. When he returns Ohconfucious could decide the value of repairing his script compared with advising users to use the alternative script. If Ohconfucious elects to repair the script, and there are further concerns he would be advised at that point to shut the script down and direct people to the alternative script; deciding to persist with a problematic script when there is a functioning alternative may be seen as unnecessarily disruptive. ''']''' ''']''' 15:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
*I also tentatively agree with Hersfold, but it would be useful to have a statement from Ohconfucius explaining what he is doing and why. ] (]) 13:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
**Ohconfucious, please provide a substantive response to this request at this time. Thank you. ] (]) 19:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
*I'm not sure there's anything that needs arbitrator intervention here. If he's failing to follow ], as was pretty clearly shown in the example above, then an uninvolved administrator should block him for disruptive editing. Clear enough? ] (]) 19:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
**Allow me to repeat Newyorkbrad's observation: Despite continuing to edit Misplaced Pages, Ohconfucius has not responded substantively to the breaches of guidelines and return to previously sanctioned behavior alleged in this complaint. I will place a talk page entry noting the expectation that his next edit to Misplaced Pages will address this complaint here. ] (]) 17:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
***I'm not finding the answer particularly plausible, OhConfucius. You don't explain why you undertook to continue editing date-related material, and frankly, your return to editing under an alternate account, to conduct date-related edits when I'd clearly told you ''twice'' that you needed to answer this charge of misconduct before doing so, is more concerning than any script error. Throughout this entire return, you claimed to be retired, only amending that . You spun a compelling tale in email when this issue was first raised, explaining why you would be less active, and you then reiterated your desire to leave the community entirely after the Falun Gong 2 finding against you. Yet, a few weeks later you're back, editing dates surreptitiously. Why should the community believe you when you say you won't cause any more problems, given your rather poor track record of congruence between your recent actions and recent statements? ] (]) 05:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
*Concur with Hersfold's reading (and my colleagues' comments) that no sanctions are active. ] ]] 22:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
*While I agree that no sanctions are active, a return to the same behaviour that led to sanctions in the past is a serious and concerning pattern. I would also like to hear from Ohconfucius on this; however, I would not rule out the reinstatement of sanctions if there has been recidivism. ] (]) 00:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
* I'd also like to hear a response to the issues here from Ohconfusius. Could one of the clerks please remind him? &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 09:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
* Summarily re-opened per statement by the committee. ] ]] 20:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

== Amendment request: Climate Change ==
'''Initiated by ''' <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> '''at''' 20:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Climate change}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
# Remedy 17

; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{userlinks|GregJackP}} (initiator)
<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. -->

; Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
* Not applicable

; Information about amendment request

* Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested: ]

* Details of desired modification: Topic-ban lifted

=== Statement by GregJackP ===
I'd like to request the removal of my topic-ban given to me at ], and to request the restrictions I was placed under on my unblock be lifted (CC & new age religious movements). In the time since I have been back, I have been a productive editor, taking a ] article to FA status and generally editing in the SCOTUS/Law/Native American areas. I have worked in Articles for Creation, attempting to help new and IP editors get their ideas to article status and into the mainspace. I also do patrol work as far as Prods, BLPProds, CSD & AfD noms. I have received the ] award and an Article Rescue barnstar since returning from my block.

I have no intent to go back into either area, but I sometimes catch myself looking at an article at AfD/AfC that could (widely construed) be in either of the areas of the ban. I would rather not have to worry about inadvertently or mistakenly crossing the line.

I know that in the CC area, that the findings were correct and the topic ban was needed. I have learned from that experience and I no longer take a battlefield approach to the issues. I've found that most issues can be worked out with talk and restraint, or, if need be, by simply walking away. Thanks. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 20:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

@NW. I don't have a problem with the block, per se. It demonstrated the battleground mentality that I had at the time and was appropriate. I believed at the time, and still believe, that you only blocked or took action against one side of the issue, at least during that time period. I also realize that some of that could be lingering bitterness about your role in what happened to me in the incident with you and ScienceApologist. That is one of the reasons that I have tried to avoid you since my return. It is also why I do not intend to return to the Climate Change area. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 15:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

<!-- Response to a banned user. --NW

@DA. I certainly would not have an objection to this suggestion, even though I would prefer (obviously) to just have the ban lifted. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 15:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

-->

@AGK. Thank you, I certainly appreciate it. Would that also include the restriction on New Age Religious Movements? A part of the condition of my unblock was to stay away from it also. I do not intend to edit there, but would like to be free of that restriction for the same reason as CC. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 22:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

@NW. Thank you. I do want to reassure you (and anyone else) that I do not intend to do anything in CC. What caused this appeal were two articles I looked at. One was an article that was pretty much ] - unsourced, no hits on anything, etc. that had been CSD'd but declined. I was about to AfD it when I noticed that it tangentially <u>might</u> be connected with global warming. I backed off of it. The other was an AfC I was looking at that was a BLP where the individual was a member of the LDS church. I did nothing there either. I just don't want to get blocked again if for some reason I miss the connection in my normal work. The most likely conflict would be in Native America SCOTUS area, since both the CC/religious areas could touch it there. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 01:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

@ST. I certainly understand your concern, however be assured that I am not going to go further with this, and made sure that I was well within 3RR. If you'll note, I started an RfC on the talkpage for the issues, and intend to abide by the consensus. I would be pleased if you would watch how this plays out, rather than assuming that I intend to edit-war on this issue. I would prefer to walk away before that occurs. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 14:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
:To clarify, if you would prefer to put this on hold to see how it plays out, I would be happy with that. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 15:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

@SBHB. I have to disagree with you on the sources. The first source listed, (Bennett, "Defamation of Religions: The End of Pluralism?") was cited to support two statements. First, the arrest and imprisonment of Gillian Gibbons in Sudan, and second, that only the intervention of the British government prevented harsher punishment. The text of the article stated: "only to find herself behind bars for defaming the Prophet Muhammad" (which supports the first statement), and "It was only after the British government intervened that
Gibbons was freed and deported from Sudan" (which supports the second statement). These lines are at p.81, para. 1 of the cited source. In addition, the cited article repeatedly discusses the us of the UN Defamation of Religions resolution to support censorship. I don't have the time to address this or to answer the second source immediately (RL commitment), but will be happy to do so later today. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 14:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
:I've thought about this since I posted earlier. This is not the time or place to delve into a content issue, unless requested by the committee members. I disagree with your interpretation of the sources, and have shown how one of the sources directly supported the material it was cited to support. If you still disagree, I would invite you to join the RfC, the AfD, or another appropriate forum for discussing the sources. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 17:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

@Tijfo098. I am open to suggestions on how to handle the matter. After going through the BRD and getting into the discussion phase with the RFC, I was working at compromising on the language. It's not exactly what I would prefer, but it was moving forward. I would also request that you look at the editor that repeatedly removes material while the discussion is going on, and that has thus far not offered any suggestions other than to delete the entire article. If they continue to remove material, it will continue to the point that there is a) no material to discuss, and b) a deleted article. I don't think that is the way to go about this, and I've repeated asked them to stop and discuss it - they won't. I was under the impression that requesting page protection was within policy, and was better than edit warring. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 03:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by NuclearWarfare ===
I would be interested to hear GregJackP's opinion on the situation where I article-banned him for disruptive editing (described best ]) with the benefit of two years' hindsight. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 05:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
:Fair enough. For what it's worth, I have liked your SCOTUS-related work and hope you continue with it. As it's looking likely that the ban will be lifted (which I do not oppose), my unsolicited advice would be for you to just stick with a few articles or AFDs here and there, not dive back in to the topic area (which seems to be your intent). But take that with as much salt as you wish. Best of luck, '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 23:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

===Statement Short Brigade Harvester Boris===
Ultimately the internal squabbles over conduct that absorb so much time in Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution procedures matter little to our readers. What matters most to them is how accurately we convey information. In this regard the most serious concern over GregJackP's involvement in the ARBCC mess was persistent misrepresentation of source material. Some very recent diffs are concerning on this point. (I have checked the sources and one of them definitely does not support the charge of "censorship" while the other is more borderline.) As far as I can tell there is no problem at all with his work on court-related articles which by all accounts has been quite good. The problems arise when he ventures into topics related to certain political perspectives, such as climate change or Islam. It would be helpful if GregJackP were to make a strong and enforceable commitment to hold himself to high standards with regard to sourcing, even (or especially) on topics where he has strong personal opinions. ] (]) 14:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Tijfo098 ===
I agree with Short Brigade Harvester Boris. GregJackP's behavior at ] shows some battleground mentality and an attempt to win a dispute by admin/procedural means. Although he did not revert much by himself, he jumped into yet another team effort (at edit warring), which is too often seen on Misplaced Pages on contentious issues. Almost all the arguments on the talk page are procedural (who reverted first and who has dibs to the "B" in BRD and so forth), so it's little more than edit warring by words. Additionally, GregJackP's inability to understand slightly technical sources coupled with his willingness to express an opinion anyway can be seen in action at ]. But we need to retain editors, I hear. ] (]) 03:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
: In reply: protection, yes. Asking an admin to , no. ] (]) 04:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
: And you are #2 in recent reverts on that article (top place goes to Roscelese, no doubt). <small>By the way, it's fun to see ]. It keeps the place lively and fun. And ] has been made.</small> ] (]) 04:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by {yet another user} ===

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

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Awaiting statements, but my initial reaction is favorable: this appeal contains both a recounting of the editor's successes in other areas and a plausible explanation of why they topic ban is hindering full participation. ] (]) 18:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
*Awaiting statements. ] (]) 19:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
*Awaiting statements. Likely to lift ban considering conduct since ] (] '''·''' ]) 21:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
*Awaiting more statements, but inclined to grant the appeal; AE can always put the topic ban back if needed under the discretionary sanctions. ] 02:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
*I too am minded to grant this appeal. If there are no objections from the community in the next 48 hours or so, I will propose a motion to vacate remedy 17), "GregJackP topic-banned", of the ''Climate Change'' decision. ] ]] 20:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

===Motion: Climate change (GregJackP)===

1) The restriction imposed on {{user|GregJackP}} in the ] and the supplementary restriction relating to New Religious movements imposed by the ] on 17 March 2012 as a condition of unblocking are hereby lifted.

''For this motion there are 14 active non-recused arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.''

:;Support:
:# This doesn't seem controversial and in any case discretionary sanctions remain in force, &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 08:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
:#] ]] 09:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
:# ] (] '''·''' ]) 09:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
:# I can support this based upon GregJackP's statement that he is making this request so he doesn't worry about having to police the outer limits of the areas from which he was topic-banned, as opposed to wading back into the maelstrom(s), coupled with his good work in other areas since the ''Climate change'' decision. GregJackP, like all editors, must also continue to abide by all applicable Misplaced Pages policies. ] (]) 00:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 04:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
:# ]&nbsp;<sup>]]</sup> 04:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 10:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 21:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
:#Incredibly weakly. I don't really see lifting both of these at once, and would prefer we had just lifted one, and come back to the other in a few months. ] 20:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

:;Oppose:
:#

:;Abstain:
:#

:;Comments:
:*On noting the comments above and reviewing ] I was inclined toward supporting this motion - though when I went to check recent contributions I noted just today the start of an edit war - . I would rather wait to hear more statements. We have perhaps gone to motion rather quickly here based on few supporting statements (none?). ''']''' ''']''' 10:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
:::The RfC is a good idea. And, while the community haven't come forward to support this request, they haven't come forward to oppose either, so that is also good. I'd like to just wait another 24 hours to see if any other comments are made, and in the meantime I'll have a quick glance at contributions history. ''']''' ''']''' 13:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
::Holding off for a while before voting. Also somewhat more inclined to lift the CC ban than the NRM one at the moment. ] 16:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
----

== Amendment request: Sathya Sai Baba 2 ==
'''Initiated by Andries ''' ]. (I had filed this request earlier in July but it was removed with my consent because I could not find time to provide diffs. Reformatted on 24 August with two sentences ''in italics'' added.) ] (]) 19:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

:'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 17:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Sathya Sai Baba 2}}
; Clauses to which an amendment is requested

# Principle 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Conflict_of_interest
# Principle 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#NPOV_and_sources
# Finding 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Sathya_Sai_Baba_is_weakly_sourced
# Finding 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Editing_by_Andries
# Finding 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Andries_runs_an_attack_web_site
# Remedy 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Andries_banned
# Remedy 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Open_remedy
; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{userlinks|Andries}} (initiator)
; Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
* not necessary
; Information about amendment request
* Remedy 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Andries_banned
* Regain write rights for ]
=== Statement user:Andries ===

I request to re-edit ]. I lost the rights to edit the article in ]. I lost to a great extent interest in the subject and have little time. But I still have a lot of good sources on the subject on the shelf. I bought them because they were recommended in arbcom case
]. I think it is a waste for Misplaced Pages and of other people's time and money when they are on my book shelf and only very few people have access to the contents. The article was never controversial, unlike ]. But after I stopped editing the ], an organization that is part of the movement, has received much criticism. I was the only substantial contributor. I promise that I will revert max. once per week. I will not get involved in lengthy discussions or extensive, repeated dispute resolution, because I do not have time. One of the reasons why I request to re-edit is that nobody seriously tried to improve the article after I was forced to stop editing. I also compiled excerpts from sources and nobody every used them. See ].

To summarize, the reason why I was topic banned for the set of Sathya Sai Baba related article were.
:1. perceived inappropriate linking in the article ]. The dispute was about linking to one of the home pages of the subject.
:2. alleged conflict of interest. I personally think that there was never a conflict of interest in the strict sense of the word, but I admit that I was, as a critical former member of the movement, emotionally involved. This has waned in the course of years. The fraction of my edits related to Sathya Sai Baba has become much smaller as my edit history shows. ''I did not receive an e-mail or phone call for years via the exbaba website. I was never involved in updating or maintaining this website.''
:3. very frequent use of the conflict resolution procedures without coming any closer to agreements.

:The arbcom considered my edits to the article ] as responsible. The arbcom did not scrutinize my edits at ], because, as stated, the article was never controversial.

The article ] suffers from neglect. Look for example, at the following sentence without good reputable source that was inserted there on ] and remains there until now.
:"When he died at the age of 84, it was revealed that he meant 96 lunar years, in keeping with the Hindu calendar."

The article ] will always remain problematic due to the lack of reputable sources for a good biography. This lack of reputable sources is explicitly described in reputable sources e.g. by anthropologist Lawrence Babb.

List of all diffs to talk page of ], maximum one year back from 17 Aug. 2012
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

List of all diffs to talk page of ], maximum one year back from 17 Aug.2012
*
*

List of books or article copies that I have on the shelf and intend to use as sources. See here for a discussion of some of these sources
]

*Babb, Lawrence A. "Sathya Sai Baba's Saintly Play", in Hawley, John Stratton, ed. Saints and Virtues Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987.
*Babb, Lawrence, A., Redemptive Encounters, (University of California Press, 1986)
*Bowen, David The Sathya Sai Baba Community in Bradford: Its origins and development, religious beliefs and practices. Leeds: University Press.
*Kent, Alexandra Divinity and Diversity: a Hindu revitalization movement in Malaysia, Copenhagen Nias Press, first published in 2005, ISBN 87-91114-40-3
*Knott, Kim Dr. South Asian Religions in Britain in the Handbook of Living Religions edited by John R. Hinnels (1997), second edition, ISBN 0-14-051480-5
*Kelly, John D. Dr. Bhakti and Postcolonial Politics: Hindu Missions to Fiji in Nation and Migration in The Politics of Space in the South Asian Diaspora
*Poggendorf-Kakar, Katharina German language Der Gottmensch aus Puttaparthi. Eine Analyse der Sathya-Sai-Baba-Bewegung und ihrer westlichen Anhänger. ], Hamburg 1999. ISBN 3-8300-0060-X

Thanks for your time. ] (]) 14:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

21:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Addition. I have to agree with what Tijfo098 , I find it very unfortunate that users, like ] are banned with the stated reasons that they are meatpuppets and sockpuppets. The evidence is at best doubtful and in my opinion very unconvincing and very insufficient. The user has good reason to see this decision as unfair. Banning users for disruption instead of sockpuppetry would be better. ] (]) 21:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Jayen466 ===
Support. I had thought of proposing this myself a while back. Enough time has passed. Andries has access to good sources, and I trust him not to abuse the editing privilege. '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 07:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
:Echoing Tjfo098's concerns. Discretionary sanctions in the topic area seem like a good idea to me. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 00:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Tijfo098 ===
Given the inability of Misplaced Pages to actually contain the edits of self-declared returning editors such as , it's probably better to allow everyone to edit it. (Also the number of registered SPAs with obvious prior knowledge of wiki syntax editing there is not surprising; those are easy to find too.) The article should put under discretionary sanctions instead, so that any new flaring of edit warring can be easily dealt with, instead of vainly hoping that every nick banned in the ancient ArbCom case is going to do what Andries did, i.e. asking permission before returning to editing. ] (]) 17:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

'''Addendum''': Exchanges such as ] and ] indicate to me that discretionary sanctions are quite necessary in this topic area. Also, the remedy against Andries (mainly for COI and linking to Priddy's site as I read it) is rather hollow when two other more prominent critics (and former devotees) of SSB, one of whom was Priddy himself, continued to edit the SSB articles directly; see those two thread links. ] (]) 08:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let me make a couple of things clearer:
* Having come back to editing after a fairly long hiatus, I can't shake the impression that a lot of Misplaced Pages has become ] now. Perhaps new editors focus on writing their own new articles, because existing ones remain outdated for years. The SSB-related ones surely look that way, ignoring at least two volumes of academic research published in the last four years: ISBN 978-9004165434 and ISBN 978-0231149334, the latter one having received many positive reviews.
* As for the proliferation of discretionary sanction areas, ask yourselves: what is easier for admins (besides not allowing anyone to edit the article)? Having to prove based on behavior alone that some new account is a reincarnation of a banned editor (as in the case of ]) or acting on disruptive editing by itself? (I can give you some easy peasy examples from Radiantenergy's editing if you insist, e.g. the wildly incorrect claims he kept repeating about a BBC documentary.)

Best of luck, ] (]) 18:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork. Alternatively, you could semi-protect the main articles and thus force the combatants to use accounts again. ] (]) 16:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by NuclearWarfare ===
@Silktork: The list of topics that under discretionary sanctions is getting too large, in my opinion. Instead, I would recommend that if you are not comfortable letting the appellant back unconditionally, perhaps you could lift the topic ban and add a editor probation that expires in 1 year if not invoked? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 19:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
:With regards to motion one, may I suggest the following rewrite or some variant thereof: "Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 Request for Arbitration is hereby vacated. {{user|Andries}} may be banned from the topic or subportions of it by any uninvolved administrator. This sanction is to expire after three months unless invoked before then, in which case it shall become indefinite." '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 06:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by {other user} ===
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary.
Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

=== Clerk notes ===
: ''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*'''Decline''' appeal. In my view, the case for overturning the sanctions is not compelling enough to justify the risk. ] ]] 11:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
: Will somebody move to vacate ]? ] ]] 13:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
*Would be willing to consider this. No blocks since 2006, user talk page looks fine, reduced but continued editing history, no apparent issues with his few comments to the relevant talk pages (a restriction that was lifted back in 2008). This case is 5 years old; I think we can probably find a way to give it a try. ] (]) 15:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
*I could go for lifting this topic ban, and giving consideration to either invoking remedy 5 to impose standard discretionary sanctions on the topic (Which would almost surely be the case already if this were a 2009, and not a 2006, case.) or granting AE authority to reimpose the topic ban on this single editor if problems arise. ] 17:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
*I think it's worth considering lifting the user topic ban, and putting discretionary sanctions on the topic itself. This would allow work to be done by someone interested in the topic and apparently with access to sources, while protecting the article against potential instability which may arise from his involvement. ''']''' ''']''' 21:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
*Based on the discussion, some moderation or removal of the existing topic ban seems to have a tentative consensus here--what is lacking is any agreement on the specific nature of such a modification. Lifting the topic ban is simplest, discretionary sanctions are easy procedurally but NW's point on their expansion is well taken. I will likely support whichever modification a colleague is willing to put forward as a motion. ] (]) 21:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
*I'd be willing to support a modification here. Perhaps we should consider suspending the topic-ban for three months, with the option of then lifting it completely if there are no serious problems during that time. ] (]) 15:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
*I see by looking at the original item that he was allowed talkpage access in 2008, which appears to have passed smoothly. Very well then. ] (] '''·''' ]) 21:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

=== Motions: Sathya Sai Baba 2 (Andries) ===

''For these motions there are 14 active non-recused arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.''

==== Motion vacating ] ====
] of the ] Request for Arbitration is hereby vacated. In its place {{user|Andries}} is placed on probation for three months with a view to lifting restrictions entirely past that date.
; Support
:# ] (] '''·''' ]) 21:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 22:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
:# Although I note that we do not have a standard "probation" provision to describe how this might actually be enforced in practice. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]</sup> 01:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
:# Support, but I will propose an edited version to make the intent clearer, below. ] (]) 05:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Note that ] actually is well-defined, but we haven't used it in a remedy for some time and obviously, very few people remember that. ] (]) 14:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

; Oppose
:#I support the idea, but I can't support ''anything'' this nebulous, as there is no solid indication what this "probation" is. ] 02:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
:#Like Courcelles, it's not clear to me precisely what 'probation' means. ] ]] 21:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

; Comments
*@Kirill, I guess just flagged at AE and dealt with there. ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
*@Courcelles, I figure any violation will be flagged and dealt with at AE? I am open for a reword/retweak before other arbs vote. ] (] '''·''' ]) 03:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
* I agree with Courcelles - we should define what we mean by 'probation' in this context. Also, not especially keen on 3 months from now, which places the decision to remove the probation in the run up to the holiday season. ] (]) 11:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

====Motion to vacate topic ban and impose discretionary sanctions====

] of the ] Request for Arbitration is hereby vacated. ] are hereby authorised for the ] topic area, broadly construed.

; Support
:#More I think about it, this is the only way I can support moving forward here. We have no usable definition for probation, and the topic area is not exactly orderly. (I note that if this were a more recent case, this would almost surely be the status quo already) ] 03:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
:# I can live with this too, but are we simply going to end up putting discretionary sanctions on everything, eventually? ] (]) 04:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
:# Fair enough. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]</sup> 20:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
:# all editors have to abide by rules. Any editor finding problems with another editors' editing can raise this at one of several venues. I can live with this option. ] (] '''·''' ]) 22:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
:# ''']''' ''']''' 10:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
:# Second choice, support the alternative limited to Andries, and given that we really don't know anything about the current state of the editing environment in this area beyond what we can casually glean from skimming the pages, since the case is several years old at this point. ] (]) 05:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

; Oppose
:#How far are we going to stretch the standard discretionary sanctions system to take this gamble on a topic-banned editor? Either leave the appellant banned, or unban him entirely, but don't pass a motion that insures our decision by extending a ''system of last resort'' to an article that has been off our radar for years. ] ]] 21:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
:# Per AGK. ] (]) 10:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
:# Also per AGK. ] (]) 21:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

; Comments
*

====Motion to suspend topic-ban====
] of the ] arbitration case is suspended for three months. During this period, Andries may edit within this topic area, provided that he carefully abides by all applicable policies. After three months, Andries may request that the topic-ban remedy be vacated permanently.

; Support
:# I think this is what the first motion above was driving at, but eliminates any confusion over procedure and terminology. ] (]) 13:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
:# Would prefer 4 months as this places the decision in the run up to the holiday season. ] (]) 10:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
:#: I have no objection to this. It would mean that the final decision would be made by next year's arbitrators rather than this year's, to the extent there is turnover, but I don't think that's a big deal one way or the other. ] (]) 13:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
:#I'm quite keen that we ''don't'' so regularly authorise discretionary sanctions that it is as though we are throwing bureaucratic confetti, so this is my only choice. (I'm fine with returning to this issue in three, rather than four, months. Our busyness over the holiday season seems greater in imagination than in reality.) ] ]] 14:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
:# Support as written; while I'm okay with 4 months if there's a copy edit, I think we can handle it in 3 months if Andries shows he is doing fine. ] (]) 21:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
:# ]&nbsp;<sup>]]</sup> 12:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
:# Willing to support this alternative, too. ] (]) 04:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
:# Yes exactly. ] (] '''·''' ]) 10:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

; Oppose
:

; Abstain

; Comments
*I'm still considering the requests for discretionary sanctions to be applied to the topic area, while weighing that against the reluctance to expand discretionary sanctions. The article has of instability, and we are adding to the potential of there being increased instability with the removal of restrictions on Andries. There is the same weight of responsibility on admins if we leave matters as they are, or if we grant any of the motions: an infringement on a series of articles can be reported and sanctions applied whatever we decide. Motion Two, however, is the only one that changes the situation from attention on one editor to attention paid where the disruption is most likely to happen: as what we are seeing is that the user has no recent problems outside the topic area, and that the topic area itself is unstable, it appears to me that it may be the topic area that requires attention rather than the user. ''']''' ''']''' 12:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


----

Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024

Shortcut Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024
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:
  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.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131

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-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

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131
Categories: