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 20:58, 12 July 2014 editLord Roem (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators10,811 edits Amendment request: Abortion: removing amendment request; motion enacted← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,013 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: Argentine History ==
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}

<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
'''Initiated by ''' ] ] '''at''' 19:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
]

]
;Case or decision affected:
:{{RFARlinks|Argentine History}}
:
<!-- 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:''
*{{userlinks|MarshalN20}} (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.
-->

=== Statement by MarshalN20 ===

Hey! I'd like to take the article ] to featured status (current sandbox, with pictures and new lead section, is at ]). Over the past year I have also led two articles to featured status, the ] and ], and will soon have a third one with the ].

I was not sure if editing the US history section would be an issue, due to the topic ban that prevents me from editing Latin American history topics (non-cultural) prior to 1980. US history is tangentially related to Latin American history. ] recommended me to take the question here in order to avoid any misunderstandings.

I'd like to work in this article to keep demonstrating my true value as an editor. Regards.--] ] 19:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

:Perhaps it's worth clarifying that I will use the ] rule when writing the history section. The only two major topics that I can currently think about (related to Latin America that I will certainly mention, in one or two sentences) are the ] and the ]. The ] (and its related practices) and ] will probably only be part of a larger sentence, the former related to hegemony in the Western Hemisphere and the latter to the Cold War. There certainly are more, but I currently cannot imagine going into detail into any of it.--] ] 02:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by The ed17 ===
Speaking as a participant in the previous discussion, opposed to MarshalN20, I think that a limited exception for the United States article is appropriate. Nearly all of the history section will not infringe on areas that caused the ban. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 03:47, 11 July 2014 (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 ===
*It would be impossible to put together a complete history of the United States without touching multiple times on its interactions with Latin America. Many of those historical interactions would be before 1983, so those portions of the article would be encompassed by the ban. However, I would be willing to consider a limited exception for that particular article similar to the previous Falklands exemption, to be revoked in the event of misconduct. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
*I agree with Seraphimblade and would support an exemption to MarshalN20's topic ban in this case. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 09:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
*Me three. --] (]) 12:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

==== Motion: MarshalN20 topic ban exemption ====
:''{{ACMajority|active=12|inactive=2|recused=0|motion=yes}}''

Proposed:

:Notwithstanding the sanction imposed on {{user|MarshalN20}} in '']'', he may edit ], its talk page, and pages related to a featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn at any time by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

:; Support
::# ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
::#Didn't this kind of thing used to be decided without having to have an actual motion? --] (]) 01:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
::#This seems pretty low risk to me. ] (]) 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
::# <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 10:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
::#With the expectation that the issues that led to the original decision will not recur on this article. ] (]) 15:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

:; Oppose
::#

:; Abstain
::#

:; Comments by arbitrators
::Floq-we make clarifications without motions, but this actually alters a previous decision from last year, hence the vote. ] (]) 03:27, 12 July 2014 (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: