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 09:00, 13 October 2013 editRschen7754 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users123,234 edits →Clarification request: Race and intelligence: passing motion← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators57,979 edits →Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal: remove archived requestTag: Replaced 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{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: Infoboxes ==
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}

<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
'''Initiated by uninvolved ''' ] (] · ] · ]) '''at''' 03:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
]

]
;Case or decision affected:
:{{RFARlinks|Infoboxes}}
:]

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Gerda Arendt}}
*{{userlinks|Neutralhomer}}

=== Statement by Anthonyhcole ===
In expanding ] from a stub, Gerda added an infobox. Neutralhomer offered to add infoboxes to articles for Greda. Is Gerda permitted to add infoboxes to articles she significantly expands? In cases where she is not permitted to add infoboxes is it OK for Neutralhomer to add them on her behalf? --] (] · ] · ]) 03:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

===Statement by Neutralhomer===
As I said on , if Gerda needs an infobox placed on any of the numerous pages she edits, I volunteer myself to add it. There are instances (like DYKs and article updates) where the addition of an infobox is necessary and I feel uncontroversial. I also feel that an infobox is, in certain cases, a necessary addition to an article. My personal opinion is that a restriction put on one our more established and well-respected editors is silly and prevents her from editing and updating articles.

So, I ask that I be allowed to add infoboxes for Gerda. This way, articles are updated and expanded, Gerda wouldn't get in trouble and any issues/problems would fall onto me. I don't think this is an unfair request as it would help only the community and help create and expand articles, which is why we are all here (though I think some of us forget that sometimes).

I completely expect that this request will be shot down, but I live by the "it couldn't hurt to ask" philosophy. If ArbCom rules against this request, I will not fight it and will, albeit reluctantly, go with it. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">] • ] • 05:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)</small>
*Per ]'s question below: I also believe that turning a redirect into an article is an article creation. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">] • ] • 02:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)</small>

=== Statement by Gerda Arendt ===

* I am under a restriction to only add infoboxes to new articles that I create. Being a DYK person, I believe expanding a stub more than 5* qualifies as new article creation, which is not equal to page creation. As this view was questioned, I asked others involved, ] and ]. I ask you.

* I have not requested anybody to add an infobox on my behalf, nor will I. Neutralhomer and others who volunteered to do so (some per e-mail) are of course free to do it anyway, in the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Thank you, Neutralhomer, for describing well above, what you and I are here for!

* If the restriction was indeed as narrow as some interpret it, I would question that it is valid at all. It would cement ownership of articles, no? You "create" a one-line stub and have it "protected" from an infobox for ever? - If that is the thinking, I should create a few one-line stubs with an infobox.

* I would have loved to celebrate Verdi's birthday by adding an infobox to his article and all his operas, because I think that would have been a good service to our readers. Under the restriction, I didn't even think of an identitybox, the compromise found for ]. Instead, I at least brought ] and am quite proud of it. --] (]) 06:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

=== Statement by Folantin ===
I would have thought the concept of "creating an article" is pretty clear-cut. If an article already exists, then you can't create it. Any messing around with the interpretation of this restriction is likely to cause problems. This seems like a breaching experiment to me. --] (]) 11:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, it goes without saying that an editor acting as proxy for another to allow them to evade restrictions is totally unacceptable. --] (]) 13:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
=== Statement by Resolute ===
I won't opine as to whether it would be a good or bad thing to relax Gerda's restriction with respect to significant expansion of an article, but article expansion is unquestionably not article creation. In either case, Neutralhomer should not be offering to act as a proxy to circumvent anyone's restriction. Especially in an area where doing so could reignite this little war. ]] 17:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
@Smeat - Montanabw's assertion is not correct. DYK allows two types of content: New (provided it meets minimum thresholds) and expanded (provided it meets an entirely different set of thresholds). But they are not the same thing, and she's engaging in false equivalency. ]] 03:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

=== Question from Smeat75 ===
Another editor has left this comment on Gerda's talk page "The DYK standard is considered the equivalent to new article creation. This is a distinction without a difference." May I request clarification if this is correct? In other words, is bringing an article to "DYK standard" the "equivalent to new article creation" in terms of the restrictions?. Thanks ] (]) 21:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

=== Statement from Ruhrfisch ===
The original proposal by ArbCom did not include allowing Gerda to add infoboxes to anything, then {{U|Roger Davies}} added the exemption that she could "include infoboxes in new articles which they create". Roger mentioned this phrase was added after Gerda posted on his talk page. On his talk page he wrote to Gerda "On your other point, I've copyedited the remedy to add "and include infoboxes in new articles which they create" as infoboxes in brand new articles is rarely controversial." . I think the phrases "new articles which they create" and "brand new articles" make his intention clear - expansion is not creation, nor is an expanded article "brand new". ] ''']''' 22:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
:I would also consider turning a redirect into an article to be article creation. ] ''']''' 00:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

=== Statement from Mark Arsten ===
If a redirect exists and Gerda turns it into an article, is she free to add an infobox to that? Is that a creation or an expansion? I would generally consider the person who turns a redirect into an article to be the article's creator, although the software doesn't recognize them as such. While this may seem like a silly question, it might be good to have some clarification for this, since these grey areas inevitably come up in disputed areas. ] (]) 23:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

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

*'''Recuse''' from this and all future requests involving this case. --''']]]''' 04:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Gerda can add infoboxes to articles she creates, but not to articles she expands. When any user is restricted or banned, then they may not get others to edit for them, nor may others act on their behalf even if not requested. For example, tracking Gerda's edits for the purpose of adding infoboxes to articles she edits would be inappropriate. ''']''' ''']''' 18:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*I echo SilkTork's comments. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> 23:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
----

== Clarification request: ] ==

'''Initiated by ''' v/r - ]] '''at''' 18:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected:
:{{RFARlinks|Ayn Rand}}
:Link to relevant decision
<!-- If seeking clarification related to a case replace "Example" with the case name. If seeking clarification related to a decision (such as a motion) include the link or specific decision. If none of these apply delete this and preceding lines. -->

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{admin|TParis}} (initiator)
*{{admin|Jreferee}}

<!-- 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 TParis ===
<!-- Describe the nature of your request, and any explanation or evidence why it is needed.
You can delete this comment when you have added your statement -->

I am filing a case about an administrator editing through protection on an article with Arbcom sanctions without consensus.

Timeline:
* 17:50 8 October 2013 {{userlinks|I JethroBT}} an RFC determining not to use qualifiers in front of the word "philosopher" in the lead.
* 18:04 8 October 2013 {{userlinks|Yworo}} an edit request to make the change in the article per the RFC consensus
* 18:27 8 October 2013 I to enact the consensus of the RFC
* 19:08 {{admin|Mark Arsten}} the full protection per the closed RFC and enacted result

*At this point, two edit wars break out:
# Whether or not to call Ayn Rand Russian-American or just American:
# Whether or not to say Ayn Rand founded Objectivism or if it's implied:
<br>
* 00:51 11 October 2013 I the article due to edit warring
* 01:02 11 October 2013 I the article under a ] and
* 12:39 11 October 2013 {{admin|Jreferee}} that again changes that section, this time specifying Russian-born American, and claiming to be carrying out the consensus of the RFC. However, the RFC was not about Russian American or American. It was about qualifiers before 'philosopher'.
* 14:06 11 October 2013 I 's attention that this was an Arbitration action, and this article is under discretionary sanctions and urge him to self revert. I also suggest that he may not of known he was contributing to the edit war.
* 16:07 11 October 2013 Jreferee to self revert asking to discuss it on the talk page instead.

As you can see on the ], Jreferee is again being asked to self revert. Unfortunately, Jreferee has continued the edit war, used admin tools to edit through full protection, and will not revert despite being warned about discretionary sanctions. According to , upon being warned that this protection was due to Arbcom sanctions, Jreferee should've reverted himself.

--v/r - ]] 18:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:{{reply to|NE Ent}} Using admin tools to violate discretionary sanctions is an issue for Arbcom, not AE Admins. AE Admins do not posses the full range of options to vet this issue.--v/r - ]] 21:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:Jreferee has self-reverted, this can be closed.--v/r - ]] 16:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Jreferee}} Please notify me if you do indeed make an statement concerning an action I've taken. At this point, as you've self-reverted, I believe that settles this matter. Since I believe I followed policy to the letter, I have no idea what particular action you dispute (maybe the 1RR/week rule but that's not connected to this dispute that I know of). So after your statement explaining yourself, if you do make one, this matter is wrapped up.--v/r - ]] 20:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

;Addressing Jreferee's concerns
] can happen over days, not just minutes or hours. That no edit has been made in 5 hours could simply mean that an editor is currently asleep or at their place of employment and has not had a chance to see that their previous edit was reverted and revert again. This article just came off a full protection for edit warring, there is no reason to doubt that those same editors were not warring again. In addition, this article is under ], which means that we treat edit wars much more harshly and strictly. The edit where you say I claimed that you consistently make these mistakes, you've taken out of context. It is in fact the motion linked on ], on the bullet starting "In March 2013, the Arbitration Committee..." and is described as the motion requiring that admins not undo Arbitration actions, in explicitly or in substance, without Arbcom's authority or community consensus. You had neither and your action undoes my full protection in substance because you've subverted it. The notification that this was an Arbitration action should've been evident when I said I'd bring it to ], but if that were not enough than you should've been aware that the article was under discretionary sanctions either by the ] I placed on the article 7 hours before your edit or the "This article and its editors are subject to discretionary sanctions" warning on the ]. Despite all of that, the article was fully protected. The giant red notice on top of the edit box told you it was fully protected. ] says, "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (see above)." If you felt that my full protection was rash, you should've come to talk to me about it. Your entire defense is a ] to that.<p>If you don't understand that what you've done is against several policies as I've outlined in very clear detail, then perhaps this case needs to remain open.--v/r - ]] 22:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

=== Statement by Jreferee ===
I am working on my statement and will post it shortly. TParis's actions need reviewing and, in fairness, I would like to have my statement on record in this discussion before it is closed. -- ] (]) 17:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

; Regarding my actions
Regarding my actions, the closed AN/RFC post drew me to the Ayn Rand article. (I had never edited the Ayn Rand before). The RFC issue - "consensus was to exclude the use of qualifiers for the descriptor "philosopher" in the lead" had already been closed and addressed three days prior, with all page protection removed.

At the time of my edit, the page had received full page protection with a 1 revert rule. Other than citing Edit warring / Content dispute, TParis failed to provide any other details regarding the full page protection with a 1 revert rule, such as in the or on the . I edited the article as an editor implementing ].

The edit I made to the lead that has been cited as raising concern up to where I reverted my edit is my changing the lead from reading (1) "was an American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter", (2) "Born and educated in Russia", and (3) the text word "Russia" linking to the ] article in the lead of the protected article. I revised the lead per ] to read "Russian-born American writer and philosopher" text word "Russia" continuing to link to the Russian American article. I though that novelist, playwright, and screenwriter could be covered by the one word "writer" and the remainder of the lead used to characterize the forms of writing she did. I saw "Born in Russia" and "Russian-born" to mean one and the same. When I posted the "Russian-born American writer and philosopher" edit, I saw the change itself as factual, uncontroversial, and having clear consensus via the language in the lead itself. I used the language in the protected article to make the change. I did not think I was taking sides on any issue or of any issue of which I was aware and believed that my edit was consistent with the page protection. ]'s subsequent post suggested that my edit may not have contributed towards encouraging consensus-building with interested editors. On reflection, I realized that my edit subsequently gave an appearance of unfairness that could have affected consensus-building with interested editors. I am sorry for giving an appearance of unfairness and will try to do work harder to prevent this.

;Regarding TParis's actions
The Russian American disagreement by four editors (two on each side) leading to the full page protection with a 1 revert rule was whether the hyphenated Russian-American should be removed from the article. Michipedian's notes that the first sentence of this article did say "Russian-American" for a very long time and someone removed it. Medeis added the Russian-American text back into the article Ten minutes later, Yworo changed the article to remove the visible Russian-American text and move the Russian-American hidden link, noting "here's a better place to link Russian American." Five edits made to the article and about two days later, Michipedian maintained Yworo's edit and added the linked text Russian-American. FreeKnowledgeCreator then removed the Russian-American text but was fine with "Born and educated in Russia" and its link to the Russian American article mentioned just a few sentences later in the lead paragraph. Michipedian then re-added the Russian-American text. Three edits made to the article and eight hours later, Yworo removed the Russian-American text.

'''About five hours after the last of seven edits made over two days by four editors regarding the Russian-American issue, TParis change the article protection from to fully protected with a 1-revert rule''' so that it linked to ] and read "Born and educated in Russia" and "was an American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter" in the lead of the article. Other than citing Edit warring / Content dispute, TParis failed to provide any other details regarding the full page protection with a 1 revert rule, such as in the , , or on the . TParis protected the article in a state where the phrase Russian-American that had long been in the article was removed.

The above seven edits over two days by four editors is what ] subsequently characterized as an ] regarding specific Russian-American verbiage for which fully protected the article with a 1-revert rule the only administrative recourse available. TParis has not commented on or provided any diffs of where he blocked or warned any involved editors before the full page protection with 1-revert rule. Of the 10,449 edits to the article, the four editors involved in the disagreement were Yworo, with 10 total edits to the article, and FreeKnowledgeCreator, with 5 total edits to the article (two favoring removing the hyphenated Russian-American text from the article) and Medeis with 12 total edits to the article, and Michipedian with 3 total edits to the article (two favored retaining the hyphenated Russian-American text in the article). There was no dispute over the article lead containing (1) "was an American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter", (2) "Born and educated in Russia", and (3) the text word "Russia" linking to the ].

After I made the edit to the article, TParis coercively indicated on my talk page that I needed to either revert my one edit regarding the specific Russian American verbiage ("Russian-born American writer and philosopher") or he would take the matter to ], and failed to provide enough information in which to make a decision. TParis posts at AN, linking to to claim that my one edit is evidence of consistently making questionable enforcement administrative actions. TParis claims above that informed me that his fully protecting the article with a 1-revert rule was somehow an Arbitration action.

This AN request resulted in me looking into the matter. I ask AN to determine at least: <br>(1) whether these events and this AN request were the result of an overreaction by admin TParis to seven edits over two days by four editors new to the article looking to become interested editors in the article. <br>(2) Whether TParis overreacted when he fully protected the article with a one revert rule to protect it against any rearrangement of the lead with regard to the "Russia" term. <br>(3) Whether TParis protected the article in a state where the phrase Russian-American that had long been in the article was removed to favor recent content. <br>(4) Whether TParis failed to sufficiently explain his full page protection/1 edit revert action to those looking to edit the article.
-- ] (]) 21:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

=== Query from NE Ent ===
Why here instead of ]?
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Statement by Thryduulf (re Ayn Rand)===
Contrary to Risker's statement below, the about-to-pass resolution to the Manning case means that it is now fine for an admin to edit through protection if they disagree that the reason the protection applies to their actions has been explicitly given. This is independent of whether other users, including the protecting administrator, consider the explanation sufficient, relevant or understandable. See ].

I know this seems absurd, but it is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from that case and I present it here to demonstrate that. ] (]) 09:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

:{{reply to|Risker}} I don't think it is acceptable at all, but I am merely applying the rules (which I explicitly disagree with) you (the arbitrators collectively) have established in the Manning case.
:Here you are drawing a frankly ridiculous distinction between:
:*making changes to content through protection that prohibits changes to content which do not have consensus (which admins are warned not to do); and
:*making changes to the title through protection that prohibits changes to the title which do not have consensus (which admins are warned not to do).
:In the manning case you (personally) are endorsing the characterisation as simply "not ideal" any administrator ignoring protection when they do not agree that the reason protection was applied has been adequately explained. Whether the edit was requested by another user is irrelevant - the person performing the action takes responsibility for that action (as has been upheld many, many times by ArbCom). Tariq has never denied knowing the page was move protected, probably because trying to move a move protected page displays a prominent warning about the protection.
:If it is acceptable for one administrator to perform an action in these circumstances but not acceptable for different administrator to perform an action in the same circumstances then we might as well not have any rules of admin conduct at all. ] (]) 17:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

===Statement by RL0919===
Although he has not made a statement here or otherwise commented on it, Jreferee has now self-reverted the edit, so this case may now be moot. --] (]) 17:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

===Statement by {other user}===
<!--Start your section above this header, leaving this section for the next person who wishes to comment -->

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

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* The reason it's here instead of AE is that AE cannot remove an administrator's bit. Editing through protection is an extremely serious matter; it confounds the community's ability to formulate consensus when any administrator can impose their personal viewpoint into an article. The edit summary in particular concerns me ("Lead to this article from an AN request. Tweaked lead, revised redundant information, and focused more on important aspects highlighted by article section headings"), as it is clearly taking a position on the content of the matter, rather than the result of the RFC, which is what the report at ] referred to. Jreferee, please revert yourself. ] (]) 05:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
**Thryduulf, I'm not going to relitigate the ''Manning naming dispute'' case here, although there is a big difference between an admin responding to a move request through *move* protection and an admin making major content changes through *full* protection. Jreferee made major content changes to this article, editing through protection, which administrators are warned not to do without obtaining consensus; when they click "edit", the editing window is coloured instead of the usual white, and there is a notice above. The same is not true for changes to titles through move protection. So let's stick to the facts when discussing this situation: based on policy, why you think it is acceptable for Jreferee to rewrite an entire section of this article whilst it is under protection? ] (]) 16:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*As Jreferee has self-reverted, I don't think we need to take this matter further. People make mistakes. ''']''' ''']''' 18:42, 12 October 2013 (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: