| Revision as of 03:21, 14 February 2014 view sourceAndy Dingley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers160,206 edits →Statement by Andy Dingley← 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}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}} | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| =<includeonly>]</includeonly>= | |||
| <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude> | |||
| <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | |||
| == Future Perfect at Sunrise - Involved and AdminAcct == | |||
| <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (] · ] · ]) '''at''' 11:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Anthonyhcole}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{userlinks|Future Perfect at Sunrise}} | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| * | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| === Statement by Anthonyhcole === | |||
| An IP editor added , supported by diffs, critical of the candidate to ]. The comment was not off-topic, vandalism or a personal attack - discussion of a user's conduct or history, with diffs, is not a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum - so I can see no justification per ] or ] for the comment's removal. The IP may have a valid reason for not identifying their account, if they have one. But reasonable people may and do disagree on the comment's appropriateness. | |||
| A succession of editors removed and restored the comment over the next two days (four different editors removing and seven restoring). A request for intervention was lodged at . ] removed the comment and fully protected the talk page. | |||
| I have asked FPaS in and to explain how reverting the page to his preferred version and then protecting it is not a breach of ] and he has declined to discuss it and banned me from his talk page. | |||
| I have no prior history with FPAS or the RfA candidate that I am aware of. I'm just concerned that an admin used his tool while involved and will do so again if he's not given appropriate guidance. Perhaps I'm wrong; if so, I'd appreciate guidance. And I'm concerned that FPAS hasn't answered my repeated requests for an explanation, per ]. --] (] · ] · ]) 17:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Floquenbeam's and Tarc's comments have persuaded me. The IP is highly probably a ban-evading sock and in that charged setting, and given the irrelevance of its contribution to the final outcome of the RfA, there was no point in extending the benefit of any slim doubt to the IP. I'm sorry it took so long for me to see that and for wasting everybody's time and adding to the candidate's and FPaS's stress. I shall now slink away and self-flagellate for a while. Do with this RFAR what you will. --] (] · ] · ]) 19:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just to be clear: there is no doubt FPaS acted while involved. None. But in this case the removal of that comment from that talk page was so obviously the right thing to do that ] was appropriate. That "obvious rightness" is clear to me now - but a few hours ago, until Floq's vandalism analogy and Tarc's "bring order to a tension-filled RfA", it was not. And it is still not clear to other reasonable, good-faith, unbiased editors here and at ANI. | |||
| ::Unlike Vercrumba, who has a picture of Stalin on his user page, I and many others opposing FPaS's action were not motivated by partisan sentiment, but by concern for the very poor behaviour and low competence of too many of our admins, and by FPaS's apparent disregard for consensus and contemptuous treatment of his fellow editors who disagreed with him. | |||
| ::When an admin acts while involved, against the express view of a majority of involved editors in good standing, in a highly charged situation, they need to be polite. If those he is overruling do not immediately get why IAR is appropriate, the admin should be patient. During this affair, FPaS has been appalling in his dealings with others. If this behaviour is part of a general pattern in his treatment of others with whom he disagrees, we still have a problem admin. --] (] · ] · ]) 01:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::], before Mike Godwin, ] said, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." There was no time to expose through discussion any falsehood or fallacies in the IP's case. Removal was the right thing to do, under the circumstances. --] (] · ] · ]) 02:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise === | |||
| This is getting stupid. I came to that page as an entirely uninvolved administrator, having seen a request at ANI to stop an edit war. Unlike virtually everybody else in the edit-war I had no dog in the fight over that RfA (if anything, I am well known to have been historically critical of the RfA candidate in question, and would personally have agreed with much of what the sock IP was saying). I saw the edit-war and resolved to protect the page, regularly, on the version I found it in at that moment – which was the one with the sock posting removed. While I was preparing to press the protect button, I noticed that somebody had put in yet another revert, beating me to it by seconds. I therefore resolved to use my admin discretion and do what I had originally – and without any doubt legitimately – meant to do, i.e. protect the version I had been meaning to protect. To do that, I made another revert before protecting. Per the protection policy, since "protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists". This is exactly what I did – the version before the edit-war being the version from before the sock IP posted its rant. | |||
| This version also happened to be the version I was convinced was the one that is in line with policy. There cannot be any reasonable doubt that the IP's posting was made in breach of either ] or ], and in that preceding edit-war I had seen no rational, policy-based argumentation being brought forward against this obvious point. In that sense there was no "disagreement between users in good standing" to be taken seriously – those who kept reinstating the post did so not out of any policy-based consideration, but either because they simply liked the message or out of some vague impulse of "not censored". Anthonyhcole and some others have been repeating ''ad nauseam'' that the IP "may have a valid reason for not identifying their account". This is in direct, obvious contradiction to ], but these editors have doggedly refused to listen whenever this has been explained to them, to an extent that crosses the line into disruptive ] behaviour. | |||
| Obviously, I did explain my actions immediately upon them becoming the object of discussion . Anthonyhcole's complaints over ] are thus bogus. "Accountability" doesn't mean I'm obliged to respond to perpetual badgering and to requests for repeats of explanations ''ad infinitum'' simply because somebody doesn't ''like'' the explanations I gave. ] ] 17:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Leaky Caldron === | |||
| In addition to ] I request that Arbcom. consider the Admin's interpretation of policy ] / ] and their general interactions ] / ]. | |||
| I was involved in the RfA and subsequent ANI discussion concerning the submission of a lengthy argument by an IP against the candidate. I had already !voted when the material was added, I was not aware of the EEML saga and took the contribution at face value. It was well written, formatted and fully supported by diffs. It is policy that IPs can edit except for documented exceptions such as RfA voting. RfA Talk IS NOT an exception. I reinstated it with the edit summary ''"(....you do not have permission, the editor has identified and per WP:TPO I object to it being removed without discussion)"''. Although I was later proved incorrect about the contributor having identified, I would make the same reversion again in the same circumstances given the lack of discussion with the poster and the obvious objections to it being removed. ] seems clear on this point. The Admin. has claimed policy support for his decision to delete the material in ], specifically ] "'''Editing project space'''": "''Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections''". The Admin claims that "''Obviuosly that also goes for editors choosing to edit logged-out without disclosing their link to their prior edit history (whether that prior edit history be itself through IPs or an account).''" This exchange can be seen in the diffs towards the bottom of this link . | |||
| I cannot find any basis in policy for the interpretation and justification given by the Admin. Unless clear and incontrovertible evidence shows a posting to be from a banned or blocked user we cannot just delete stuff we disagree with. Unsubstantiated edit summaries such as "''(rv, obviously a statement by some banned troll sock)''", while comically blunt, are guaranteed to provoke an adverse reaction from editor's who prefer evidence rather than rhetoric. Accuracy, effective communication and evidence is a minimum requirement for Admins. making controversial edits. | |||
| ] does not preclude IPs editing the Talk Page at RfA in the list of prohibited areas. It expressly lists voting at RfA, but not adding to the RfA Talk Page and I believe that there is good reason for that. The Admin. with the following edit dismissed that argument thus: "'''Sigh. I didn't expect anybody would sink so low into wikilawyering. With this, you have finally lost any claim to being taken seriously here. Learn this: on Misplaced Pages, we read policy texts for their intent, not for their letter. Now go away, I'm no longer interested in having any discussion with you.'''" Edit summary: '''"end of discussion"'''. This brings me immediately to another issue that the Admin. should be held accountable for, namely the blatant lack of civility in their dismissive, derogatory response. Civility is an absolute stated requirement of ]. In this and other examples throughout this discussion the Admin. has demonstrated a single minded and off-hand style of dealing with any challenges made to their decision. In my opinion it has gone beyond acceptable levels of cut and thrust argument and he has descended into aggressive and hostile defence of his position including undisguised personal attacks on an editor simply pointing out documented policy and requesting clarification. | |||
| === Statement from MONGO === | |||
| Concur that reasonable people might disagree as to the merits of the IP posting at the Rfa in question. My impression is that since making what could easily be construed as a wise admin decision, Future Perfect at Sunrise has been subjected to harassment, inquisition style questioning and badgering which indicates that those engaged in such behavior must either have other deeper reasons for this behavior or they are simply bored and this is how they get their kicks. The amusing part about it to me is that not only did they see no problem with aiding and abetting a throw away IP account that could easily be argued was simply trying to misuse the Rfa process to settle a score, but that when an administrator tried to make that Rfa less acrimonious, these same enablers proceed to hound and harass the admin. That is as clear a definition of cyberbullying as can be found.--] 18:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Tarc === | |||
| It is rather obvious that the IP user we're talking about is not a legitimately "new" user, that they are clearly falling under the "avoid scrutiny" part of ], so the removal was perfectly valid. I read not a lick of what was actually posted, and have never had a thing to do with the EEML situation, the problem here is simply that we shouldn't be allowing scrutiny-avoiding criticism to be entered into an RfA. As a person stands for adminship, they should have the right to rebut criticism and to know exactly who it is coming from. FPaS acted to bring order to a tension-filled RfA, nothing more. | |||
| === Statement by NE Ent === | |||
| I'll note I don't share other's divination powers to know whether the disputed content was from a banned editor, a so called anonymous coward, or long term ip editor. Regardless, it was a well crafted political statement -- rather than a rant it appeared to be a well-sourced manifesto intended to scuttle the Rfa, which did in fact not succeed. Since correlation is not causation, assigning causality would be going too far, but its at least plausible FPaS's heavy handed intervention ] the statement into greater prominence; as ] said, "The best answer for bad speech is more speech." Had the statement been allowed to remain the candidate could have attempted to address the concerns listed, rather than appearing to be metaphorically hiding between the skirts of the editors repeatedly removing the content and eventually the admin who removed it and temporarily protected the page. | |||
| Nonetheless, although the admin action was counterproductive, it in itself is not sufficient grounds for ArbCom scrutiny -- but what came after is. | |||
| I don't see FPaS's statements as adequate because they're not coherently cogent. In paragraph one they claim no editorial involvement -- they say they were simply going to protect ''the wrong version'' but add some convoluted ''I didn't inhale'' defense saying they "had no dog in the fight" but their revert to a preferred version doesn't really count because that's the first version they saw; describing the statement as "rant" indicates a strong editorial position. Then in paragraph two they say removing the content was in line with policy, which contradicts the whole convoluted paragraph one. | |||
| Personally, I would expect a tool using administrator not merely to "do what is right," but to have a logically coherent reason in line with policy for the doing, and to be able to succinctly and civilly explain those reasons. | |||
| ] famously said ''With great power comes great responsibility,'' and the current written ] policy claims "Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors." This is backed by prior ArbCom statements: | |||
| *] (AC 2008) | |||
| *] (AC 2007) | |||
| *] (AC 2007) | |||
| *](AC 2007) | |||
| So this case provides AC 2014 with an opportunity to let the community know whether those seven year old statements indicate current policy, or whether Tim Simonite was correct when he wrote in Technology Review <small>]</small> 20:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Vecrumba}} When you say "this is a waste of time and energy and is symptomatic of the kind of sniping that has caused us to lose more than 30% of active editors ..." what is the antecedent of (what do you mean by) "this"? Who should have acted differently? <small>]</small> 22:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Vecrumba === | |||
| It's fair to say that FPaS and I don't always see eye to eye. That said, this is a waste of time and energy and is symptomatic of the kind of sniping that has caused us to lose more than 30% of active editors since our peak in 2007. An ounce of restraint is worth an infinite quantity of mea culpa post-self-flagellation. ]<small> ►]</small> 21:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : @NE Ent, Anthonyhcole should have inquired rather than accused and then escalated. It's symptomatic of: | |||
| :* accuse—not inquire, | |||
| :* presume guilt—not innocence, | |||
| :* escalate (i.e, "this") on the accused's failure to admit said guilt—not desist when their folly is pointed out. | |||
| :Anthonyhcole can self-flagellate until the cows come home, the incremental damage is done. WP is an encyclopedia, not a self-deputizing police state. Really, accusations of "censorship" for deleting anonymous IP diatribe? ]<small> ►]</small> 23:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Lukeno94 === | |||
| I'm rather disappointed to see that ArbCom are also immediately jumping to the "banned sock" viewpoint, when there is categorically no evidence this is a banned user. None whatsoever. Now, whether this user is violating ] is another argument, and one that can be made without jumping to unfounded conclusions; but Floquenbeam, you have unfortunately jumped to said conclusion. It's pretty clear to me that FPaS ''did'' violate ], but it's better to leave this sorry case in the past, rather than trying to drag it up again - it's clear no one is going to get sanctioned from this. ] ] 23:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===General observation by Resolute=== | |||
| I don't know if FPaS specifically cited a belief that the IP was a banned editor, but if he was operating under that premise, then removing the content before protecting would effectively be one administrative action and not a violation of involved. One might instead question, as Likeno94 does, whether ''that'' would have been a good assumption in this case, but it would still moot the original question of INVOLVED. Also, given I am not lashing out at FPaS, and since I am also an admin, I am obviously just part of the cabal as certain agitators involved in this dispute intent on poisoning the well will no doubt argue. ]] 03:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Andy Dingley === | |||
| I've taken no part in the RfA and make no comment on that. However in just the immediate section beneath that ANI, we have this: ], an issue that I didn't raise here, but I've been involved in for some time. Future Perfect is behaving in just the same way, stonewalling a discussion amongst a number of GF editors by the instant blanket deletion and blocking of another editor who is posting material relevant to an SPI, but doing so by socking (Given the harassment and attacks that follow any involvement in that SPI, I can understand why an editor might choose to do so). | |||
| The issue here is Betacommand's return by socking. Future Perfect, long a supporter of Betacommand, is acting in a way to prevent discussion of this. He is acting against the direct wishes of multiple editors (two of us make it very clear in that ANI post). Future Perfect is using admin tools, including threats of immediate blocks against long-established GF editors, to strong-arm a discussion against other editors. This is precisely the sort of behaviour admins should ''not'' follow. | |||
| As noted by Luke above, this editor is almost certainly a sock but there is ''zero'' evidence presented to indicate that they're a ''banned'' editor, despite being regularly described as such. The circular logic is also applied that they must be a sock because they're blocked, and that they're now blocked because they're a sock. | |||
| I see these two issues, and why these two issues matter at ANI, why they matter here, and why they're still not made moot by a closed RfA, as being about Future Perfect and their use of admin powers, not about the RfA or the SPI specifically. ] (]) 03:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| === Future Perfect at Sunrise - Involved and AdminAcct: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/2/0/0> === | |||
| {{anchor|1=Future Perfect at Sunrise - Involved and AdminAcct: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small> | |||
| *'''Decline'''. I don't need to wait for further statements, this is clear cut. The ridiculous edit warring on that page is depressing, though not surprising, and "trouts all around" wouldn't be taken onboard by anyone, and "blocks all around" would perhaps be overkill, so I'll not suggest either one. Re: INVOLVED: This isn't what INVOLVED refers to, any more than an admin reverting vandalism and then protecting the page would. This is an obvious banned sock, stirring up trouble. Re: ADMINACCT: FP@S explained his actions pretty clearly, I believe meeting the requirements of ADMINACCT. Perhaps more patience with people questioning him is in order, but I know that's easier said than done. Look, if we're going to let obvious banned editors avoid scrutiny and post 58k of accusations against an old enemy on the talk page of an already contentious RFA, then we might as well throw WP:SOCK out the window. --] (]) 18:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' Per Floq and the fact that it is basically moot at this point. ] (]) 20:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Hinduism in Pakistan == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 18:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Khabboos}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{userlinks|AcidSnow}} | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| * | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> | |||
| * ] | |||
| === Statement by Khabboos === | |||
| In the article on ], I wrote that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005, with this as a reference - '"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". http://www.dawn.com/news/145745/mob-ransacks-temple-in-nowshera. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 31 January 2014.', which said the same thing, but User:AcidSnow is continuously removing it, so please tell me what to do. He is also stalking me around wikipedia and reverting my edits. | |||
| ; Response to statement by User:AcidSnow : {<font color=green>Mediation and Arbitration are not forum shopping</font>} ] (]) 19:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by AcidSnow === | |||
| What? Why did you make a second one? All you are doing is continuing your forum shopping which is not allowed. I don't understand what you are trying to achieve from this. As for reverting your edits and "stacking" you, I have no desire to harm you and I am only removing your disruptive edits. I am not the only one that has done this. ] has also said what . Khabboos, it is forum shopping as using Arbitration is getting help from an Admin which falls under Admin shopping. ] (]) 18:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by ] === | |||
| Isn't this dispute (to the extent that it is clear what the dispute is) within the scope of ], which places all articles about ] under ], largely due to disputes such as this one? Shouldn't any conduct issues be taken to ] instead of requesting new arbitration? ] (]) 21:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by {Party 4} === | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| === Hinduism in Pakistan: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0/0> === | |||
| {{anchor|1=Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Hinduism in Pakistan: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small> | |||
| *'''Decline''' Arbitration is supposed to be the absolute last stop in dispute resolution. The committee will only involve itself in prolonged issues that the community has failed to resolve through lesser means. That does not appear to be the case here. ] (]) 19:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I suppose this would fall under the discretionary sanctions from the case mentioned above. Any uninvolved admin can step in act as needed, but all parties need to be informed of the sanctions first. (that rule may be changing in the very near future but I believe it is still policy at the moment) ] (]) 01:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''', any issues here should be handled by standard dispute resolution, and any conduct problems can be handled by existing discretionary sanctions. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''', this appears to be a content dispute, per above. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 11:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree with my colleagues that this dispute is not ripe for arbitration yet and suggest that it be referred to ]. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 11:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline'''. ] (]) 16:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' per above. --] (]) 19:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' per above. ] <small>]</small> 06:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' per my peers above. ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 14:04, 13 February 2014 (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.