| Revision as of 12:04, 13 January 2013 view sourceLittleBenW (talk | contribs)8,599 edits →Statement by LittleBenW← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024 view source MJL (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors42,350 edits →Sabotage of Lindy Li's page: removing case as premature: declinedTag: Manual revert | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}} | |||
| =<includeonly>]</includeonly> = | |||
| {{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}} | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} | |||
| <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| == Repeal of hyphen ban == | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 23:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Apteva}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{admin|Seraphimblade}} | |||
| <!-- 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:Apteva|532783458|532766345|Diff. 1}} | |||
| *{{diff|User talk:Seraphimblade|532783516|532730862|Diff. 2}} | |||
| ;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 --> | |||
| *{{diff|User_talk:Seraphimblade|531605507|531599836}} | |||
| === Statement by Apteva === | |||
| This is very simple. In one of the more bizarre community actions, I am topic banned from making uncontroverial corrections involving horizontal lines such as hyphens, used for well everywhere and endashes used not so much. I brought up the proper use of hyphens, as to me the MOS was being misapplied and had errors, ].{{diff|Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style|514439391|514355457}} So I brought it up again. And again. The MOS regulars had decided in July 2011 to handle things in a particular way, and created, what I referred to as the great endash debacle of 2011, moving up to hundreds of articles to odd names because of this choice. As these moves got noticed, some editors asked to move them back, ]. An ] was opened to ask me to stop discussing hyphens and endashes, which is reasonable, although that assumes that the topic does not require discussion. A subsequent ] lead to a topic ban{{diff|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard|531604470|531603903}} even though I had already agreed to not discuss hyphens, and was not supported as many of those voting were involved, and there was strong opposition to a topic ban. However, since then discussion has, as predicted, continued on hyphens and endashes, and expanded as well, which I commented on, and was in my opinion, improperly warned for violating the topic ban (if it is a topic ban on eggs and someone brings up dairy, is that a violation if I discuss only the other aspects of dairy?) As discussion on hyphens and endashes is continuing and I am fully prepared to limit my discussion appropriately, I ask that the topic ban be vacated (because it was inappropriate). There are now two requests at AN that the topic be brought to Arbcom, perhaps through a negotiated discussion such as that of Palestine. | |||
| Were this case to be expanded beyond a an appeal of the topic ban, I would suggest that the only appropriate direction would be to address the topic of the incivility of the MOS, which is the only reason this ever became a topic, per ]. | |||
| === Statement by Seraphimblade === | |||
| Rschen has already listed the two discussions which were most germane to the applicability of the topic ban. Overall, between the request for comment and the discussion on AN, there was a clear consensus that Apteva's participation had been disruptive through ] and ]. I believe that this interpretation of the consensus at these two discussions was correct. I would also note that many participants at this discussion specifically noted that they believed Apteva's assurance of voluntary abstention from this area to be inadequate, and noted their belief that a topic ban was necessary. | |||
| I am unsure, then, where the assertion that the topic ban is "inappropriate" stems from. While many editors involved in the dispute did participate in the RfC/U and AN discussion, many uninvolved editors did as well, and in general concurred. I have never myself been ] in the debates over this issue, nor do I have any particular opinion as to how they should turn out. The ban discussion itself ran longer than the recommended 24 hours, and with the RfC/U immediately preceding it, had input for much longer than that. I therefore believe that my decision on the discussion's outcome was appropriate, followed policy, and was supported by consensus. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Rschen7754 === | |||
| Overall, the case filing is incomplete. The following should be added to the list of parties: | |||
| *{{user|Wikid77}} | |||
| *{{user|Dicklyon}} | |||
| *{{user|LittleBenW}} | |||
| {{user|MBisanz}} and I have been watching this as well but are not primary parties. | |||
| Should be added to the above under dispute resolution: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| The picture is a lot bigger than Apteva paints. --''']]]''' 01:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :@Coren: I personally think the committee should go further than the topic ban and look at conduct issues the broader topic, as I'll explain in my statement. --''']]]''' 02:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Seraphimblade and Hahc21 have gotten a lot of the basics of the dispute. There are two reasons why I think ArbCom should take this case: | |||
| ;The topic ban relating to Apteva and dashes is unlikely to prevent further disruption by Apteva to the encyclopedia. | |||
| *'''Apteva is not adhering to the spirit of the topic ban''', as documented ]. However, no admins are actually willing to block for this violation, as seen here ] - textbook something that the '''community isn't resolving'''. They may be adhering to the letter of the topic ban, but are continuing to further their side of the dispute in the process. | |||
| *Further IDHT issues outside the MOS - as discussed at ], ]. | |||
| *The IDHT and wikilawyering issues have been long-term: ]. | |||
| *An overall ] attitude and refusing to respond positively to criticism - RFC (holding their ground in the face of a strong consensus), undoing the closure of their own RFC and their response to the warning by MBisanz, showing no understanding of the issue: ] and followed by Wikilawyering. | |||
| ;The conduct of other users needs to be examined. | |||
| *Wikid77 has continued to pursue Apteva's position and pursuing a battleground mentality . MBisanz has given him a warning for his behavior | |||
| *Others have called for a topic ban on LittleBenW as well. | |||
| *Currently there is no clear consensus on applying the same topic ban to Wikid77 and LittleBenW ] and many believe that ArbCom should resolve the issue: ] | |||
| *This is partially because many feel the ban is one-sided and does not address the conduct of other users in the dispute. | |||
| The community is divided on the matter of the topic ban and on these users' conduct, and ArbCom needs to examine the conduct issues here. --''']]]''' 05:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Hahc21 === | |||
| I have been closely following this from the beginning. I agree with Reschen7754 that all involved parties have not been named (also, the critical ones have been named by Rschen, not Apteva). This all started a long ago with the attempt by Apteva to impose a new standard that hyphens should prevail over en- and em-dashes, arguing that the ] was incorrect in the matter. His unwillingness to accept what was told to him (that we should follow the MoS when applying the ]) led to the creation of a ] about the user and his behaviour. Although I fail to properly characterize Apteva's behaviour as disruptive, most members of community assessed it as such. My first appearance was during the proposal of the first motion to close the RFC; I did several modifications to remove several things from such motion that violated the RFC closing guidelines and then, I provided a clearer writing of the desired outcome: | |||
| :''Apteva's personal views over en dashes and hyphens are widely opposed by the community, and as a result, Apteva agrees to refrain from any further advocacy of this position and related positions. Apteva is discouraged from making or requesting any action based on such views...'' | |||
| After that, I had ], asking him to let it go and find other things to do on the pedia, for good. I even recommended him to "let the waters calm down, and slowly bring, with a different approach, this matter in the future." Although I agree that some of the users supporting the ban held a non-neutral position on the matter, comunity as a whole supported the ban, and as of yet, I see no reason to overturn. Maybe in six months or a year. — ]] 01:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''@ArbCom''' I should clarify that my comment stating that "I see no reason to overturn" the ban doesn't show my views about how this should be solved. As I stated on the RFC (and later on the AN/I thread), ArbCom would be the only entity able to put an end to this. I opposed a community-imposed ban because under this circumstances, the committe is the only one who can hold proper water about this matter. Why? because it is unbiased and neutral; two things many members of the community lack. I was thinking about a motion, but several other parties' behaviour has to be evaluated and (if appropriate) sanctioned. — ]] 05:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment from ] === | |||
| Oh, for the love of God... | |||
| I'm sorry if this comes off as blunt, but... look, Apteva, just drop it. OK? Are hyphens and en-dashes really so important as to merit all this? Who ''cares''? It is such a trivial issue that I cannot fathom how anyone could become this obsessed with it. | |||
| Please, just let it go. It's a huge, ''huge'' waste of everyone's time and energy to worry about which dash is which. Trust me, nobody else gives a crap. Why not focus on editing articles instead? ] ] 02:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Apteva gave me update on my talk page. I'll leave it between him and the rest of the community, as I couldn't care less anymore. Not really my forte. ] ] 03:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Johnuniq === | |||
| I first commented on this issue a month ago at WP:VPP (in ]). I repeat, "{{xt|@Apteva: Misplaced Pages requires a good community to build the encyclopedia. Vandals and incompetent editors are easily handled—what destroys a community is endless bickering. Let's say the previous discussions were all wrong, and the conclusions are invalid. It is ''still'' the case that the horse has been sufficiently beaten, and the matter must be dropped...}}." Someone needs to make that clear to Apteva, and an indefinite block might be the only thing that gets their attention (a block that would be removed immediately they acknowledge the problem, and undertake to drop dashes and all associated discussion and appeals/clarifications for 12 months). An Arbcom case is not needed for that, but please, would someone stop the disruption. ] (]) 02:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment by Hasteur === | |||
| I mentioned in the statements of the RfC/U that a moratirium on calling the question needed to occur. From the outright rejection of the RfC/U, to the "OMG TL:DR" AN thread, and now here we have a user who refuses to pay attention to the will of the community. I propose a ban on calling the question (of punctuation) or challenging the community imposed topic ban for a period of no less than 6 months. The community's patience has been exhausted. Either the user will develop a sense of clue, or the user should be met with suspensions of editing privileges with increasing duration. ] (]) 02:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Art LaPella=== | |||
| I don't really like the dash rules either, but I know a consensus when I see one. Apteva should have recognized that consensus by last October. ] (]) 03:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Dicklyon=== | |||
| I support Seraphimblade's statement that his closing the discussion with a topic ban was appropriate, reflecting a huge community consensus after months of Apteva's disruptive behavior and numerous attempts to deal with it. | |||
| I have told Seraphimblade, however, that he left a problem for us by not stating the ban in the way that included all the scope that the community had clearly asked for, with the result that Apteva has continued his anti-MOS disruption, skirting the ban. Seraphimblade says the ban already is clearly intended to prohibit the behavior that Apteva has continued to engage in, but this was not clear to Apteva, due to the wording of the closing statement and ban. I don't really expect ArbCom to take this up, but if they do, their '''deliberations must include clarifying the ban and/or blocking Apteva for violating it already.''' I can provide links and diffs if it comes to that. It's discussed here: ], and at Seraphimblade's suggestion I requested a block via ]. ] (]) 03:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Guerillero=== | |||
| Any disruption of the MOS pages can be dealt with under the existing discretionary sanctions and do not seem to need a full case. --] | ] 04:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by David1217 === | |||
| I am somewhat involved in this mess, having opened {{diff|Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Airports|509628283|509618981|two}} {{diff|Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Airports|507783937|507781276|RfCs}} on the matter of hyphens/dashes in airport names. I don't have a position either way, as I have started RMs on {{diff|Talk:Reno–Tahoe International Airport|501825729|375846077|hyphens to dashes}} and {{diff|Talk:Seattle–Tacoma International Airport|509514815|499745161|dashes to hyphens}}. When I asked for clarification on the use of hyphens vs. dashes, I was amazed at the nastiness and bad faith from users in that topic. I fully support the topic-ban of Apteva—if anything, ArbCom should open a case to look at other editors in this topic are who also perhaps deserve a topic-ban. ]] <sup>]</sup> 06:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by uninvolved BorisG === | |||
| * I support Apteva's view on the use of hyphens and en dashes (per ]). | |||
| * I find the opposite you prepostorous. | |||
| * I find the issue to be minor but important. Misplaced Pages's major role is educational, and the last thing we want is to promote errors. | |||
| * Yet Misplaced Pages works by consensus and everyone has to abide by such consensus. | |||
| * Apteva has been properly topic banned for his failure to adhere to that consensus. | |||
| * There is nothing improper in this topic ban, and there is nothing for the ArbCom to do here (however, clarification of the scope of the ban might be useful). ] (]) 09:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment by Neotarf === | |||
| There seems to be some confusion over the exact terms of the topic ban. Even today, Wikid77 is saying that Apteva's latest MOS-related edits at WP:TITLE do not violate the topic ban , even though the admin who wrote the ban has said that they do. | |||
| Here are three more diffs for "dispute resolution" that has been tried. | |||
| <blockquote></blockquote> | |||
| <blockquote></blockquote> | |||
| <blockquote></blockquote> | |||
| —] (]) 09:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Wikid77 === | |||
| I, {{lu|Wikid77}}, editor since before May 2006, began this as an uninvolved editor in December 2012 (as was ]), when I first noticed the ], curious to learn why endashed titles seem very rare (<7%) in ] reliable sources. In every post Apteva made, I began to agree with every comment s/he was making, and searched thousands of webpages to confirm the world mostly uses hyphens, not dashes, as the ] spelling in many titles ("]" or "]" or "]"). Clearly, a WP policy overrides a guideline, and world-chosen titles should override suggested ] dash rules. I thought Apteva was great for politely, concisely reminding people to use common-name spellings, as policy trumps guidelines, and did not see evidence of "disruption" there. However, the hostility against Apteva seemed very intense, but no evidence (as diff-links) confirmed any disruption from Apteva's polite remarks. Having been a debate judge for years, I examined the unfounded claims, considered their basis in fallacies, and sided with Apteva on the issues. Apteva showed remarkable politeness, so it took me a while to realize a single editor, ] had initiated each forum against Apteva (RFC/Apteva, most RFC edits, topic-ban, topic-ban violation, and topic-ban block), backed by a group of prior ] editors who seemed very hostile. After Apteva was topic-banned, then {{lu|SMcCandlish}} filed a proposed topic-ban against both me and {{lu|LittleBenW}} as "co-horts" even though we had no prior contact with each other nor Apteva before RfC/Apteva. The few users who supported the topic-ban against me and LittleBenW were mainly involved editors, or had advocated prior bans against us, against me about ] in Italy's ], or against LittleBenW about diacrtics (see our usernames in ]). | |||
| Obviously, for LittleBenW and myself to go from uninvolved, total strangers () to be accused as a "triumvirate" with Apteva was bizarre, and fortunately very easy to refute by looking at Intersect-contributions (, ), since we 3 rarely posted to the same article-talk pages (Apteva and I independently edited many solar-power articles (), months apart, as I changed {]} when articles ]). Hence, such over-the-top claims of non-existent "collusion" made me very suspicious that there was, in deed, a campaign to silence non-pro-dash editors, regardless of how unjust the ] claiming strangers as cohorts. At this point, I think Apteva is just too polite to consider a pro-MOS ] has insisted on the topic-ban(s), and I do not know the prior connections, between all those involved editors, to see who !voted a "false consensus" that Apteva had been disruptive when perhaps other editors shouted wildly in every talk-page Apteva edited. To summarize the issues: | |||
| * '''Trampling by wiki-dash-osaurus:''' It seems Apteva has been the victim of a combination of pro-dash advocates plus false consensus thinking that policy ] titles must respell hyphens as suggested wp:MOS dashes (or else). Meanwhile, other editors within the dashosaurus imagine the suggested dashes are mandatory because wp:MOS recommends their use (and "Style is never wrong, just inappropriate"), and even conclude MOS overrides policy ] to force dashes where 99% of sources state hyphenated "]" (not dash). | |||
| * ''']:''' Because Apteva's posted remarks have been so low-key polite, focused on policy/guideline separation, then it seems the attacks have been to silence the messenger who brings unpleasant news that ] is only a "mere guideline" and policy ] is higher, and do not say that huge numbers of Wikipedians do not care about dashes (or hyphens) forced where they are not used. No, shut up because style is supreme, and no scientists (or experts) should be allowed to name their titles (as explained by essay ], ]). | |||
| * '''Fallacy '']:''''' (majority) The RFC/Apteva was treated as clear "evidence" of disruption needing a topic ban, but it was only structured as statements of opinion, followed by signatures to "Endorse" each stated view, and most people decided the RFC/U must topic-ban Apteva, but again, gave no evidence of disruption, and hence, if 28 people endorse the first motion-to-close then that must be true, by fallacy of majority means true. | |||
| Long story short, the topic-ban against Apteva seems premature, pushed by fallacy '']'' to endlessly repeat "disruption" purportedly from Apteva's polite messages, and by '']'' that conflicts would cease after topic-ban, but instead, conflicts escalated when Wikid77 and LittleBenW became the new targets for topic-ban next, and Apteva was accused of topic-ban violation (wp:AN) and then request for topic-ban block (wp:ANI). Hence, clearly (hello?), the current topic-ban of Apteva is just STEP 1 in a pattern of ] of 3 unrelated editors who dislike forcing dashes or pushing wp:MOS guideline to override policies. Meanwhile, Apteva has been too polite to advance that viewpoint, and did not mention all forums were initiated by talk-page opponent ] (), who , with , filing , , , and (etc.). Apteva (and me Wikid77 and LitteBenW) have been caught in a power-play to force ] title styles to higher levels of mandate, regardless of whose editing is disrupted when making that ]. As I noted, I was a debate judge for years, and when 3 unrelated, long-term editors (not SPAs) become targets accused of "collusion" then the pattern of one-sided badgering is easy to show. That team defeated itself in this debate. If more diff-links are needed, just ask. -] (]) 10:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by LittleBenW === | |||
| * I couldn't care less about hyphens vs. dashes, and have not been involved in changing hyphens to dashes, or vice versa. But I do feel that the behavior of a few people who think that they own the MOS and can invent and impose arbitrary rules—without consideration of commonsense and real-world practices—is sometimes a problem. | |||
| * Comments from Enric Naval, ErikHaugen and Dicklyon ] point out that "Wikid77 joined (Apteva) only about 33 days ago, and has been much less vocal and persistent; probably less than 1 related post per day". I have been even less involved with this issue. Shadowjams, DCI2026, My76Strat, SarekOfVulcan and Nathan_Johnson also agree (on Jan. 8 and 9) that no topic ban is called for. As Wikid77 points out, for he and I "to go from uninvolved, total strangers to be accused as a "triumvirate" with Apteva was bizarre". | |||
| * SMcCandlish "submissions" seem to be limited to persistent and repetitive strings of accusations with little or no factual justification, personal insults, smear tactics, and threats. I don't think it's possible for him to engage in polite and rational discussion. Maybe he has never heard of the Golden Rule? < Regarding the Diacritics issue > In the ] following the ] many people (such as PBS, Wolbo, Nouniquenames, Collect, Kauffner, Jæs, Reyk, and Alanscottwalker protested the gross unfairness and lack of due process in ramming through a very extreme indefinite diacritics topic ban in just under 29 hours during a holiday period. For the record, I think I have only '''once''' "added an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics" (in the ) and probably '''never''' "converted any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page". This appears to have been all a sham, an attempt to shut down any discussion about doing proper research in a broad range of reliable sources, and to stop any discussion about keeping English Misplaced Pages widely accessible and useful to the majority of people who can't read foreign languages, while ], which I support. ] (]) 12:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| === Repeal of hyphen ban: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/2/0/2> === | |||
| {{anchor|1=Repeal of hyphen ban: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small> | |||
| *As a general rule, I don't believe ArbCom should overturn community-imposed sanctions, unless there are egregious procedural errors or it is evident that the consensus to impose them was otherwise tainted; in brief, I don't believe we should be second-guessing the community, unless there are special circumstances. I am awaiting more statements, before making a decision, but my preliminary perception is that, in this case, there are no reasons to repeal the topic ban in question. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 01:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline'''; the Committee would not intervene to overturn a community sanction unless there was something cleary improper about it or the way it had been discussed; I see no indication that this is the case here. — ] <sup>]</sup> 02:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline'''. There is a certain irony that I pretty much share Apteva's position on the use of endashes versus hyphens. (Readers might want to read the current discussion at ] and consider whether the required use of punctuation marks that are unavailable on any standard English language keyboard is an accessibility issue.) Nonetheless, it's pretty clear what the current consensus position is on this issue. The topic ban on Apteva may not be the most elegantly worded; however, its intention is clear and Apteva was clearly testing boundaries. Apteva, you might want to consider whether or not you should withdraw this request. ] (]) 05:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Rschen7754's statement is that this matter goes further and deeper than the request to lift a topic ban. I'd like to look a bit more into that; and I'd be interested in hearing more statements about the users Rschen7754 mentions. However, as with my colleagues above, I don't see ArbCom lifting the topic ban. ''']''' ''']''' 07:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC. Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
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 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
| 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.
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.
General guidance
|
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.