Revision as of 07:03, 17 June 2012

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

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:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
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.

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-llists.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

• Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
• Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
• Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
• Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

• WP:ARCA
• WP:ARA
• WP:A/R/C&A
• WP:A/R/CL
• WP:A/R/A
• WP:A/R/CA
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and .../Amendment

Clarification request: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images

Initiated by Anthonyhcole (talk) at 06:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Saedon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Qwyrxian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Singularity42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Johnbod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NeilN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chowbok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Veritycheck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Anthonyhcole

Since the closure of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images, where I was heavily involved as a party and not mentioned or sanctioned in the conclusions, and the subsequent Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Muhammad images I've edited Muhammad a few times:

and been engaged in significant constructive discussion on the talk page:

1. Talk:Muhammad/Archive_26#Minor_change_in_expression
2. Talk:Muhammad/Archive_26#Copy_and_paste
3. Talk:Muhammad/Archive_26#Muhammad_created_Islam.3B_their_god.2C_Allah

A couple of weeks ago I attempted to begin a discussion about image curation on the sub-page Talk:Muhammad/images but dropped it when no one took it up. I was however advised by seven editors that I may not discuss that topic. This was not my reading of the arbitration conclusion.

A couple of days ago at Talk:Muhammad#Edit_request_on_15_June_2012 a new editor requested that pictures of Muhammad be removed from the article. Four editors responded:

• Mdann52: Please address your issues at Talk:Muhammad/Images
• Veritycheck: I'm sorry, unfortunately the Misplaced Pages community has decided that there is a consensus to keep pictures of Muhammad in the article. Apologies on my behalf and the other editors here who disagreed with the decision.
• Tarc: Yes, WP:NOTCENSORED is the applicable policy here. Thank you for your concern.
• Anthonyhcole: That policy, WP:NOTCENSORED, explains why Misplaced Pages doesn't have to remove those images, Huzaifah but I can't point you to a policy that says we have to include them, because there is no such policy. It is our free choice to include them or not in the article. We have a right to but no obligation. Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages's official stance toward you is that we don't care that it offends you. Even though most of the figurative depictions of the prophet (pbuh) in this article add nothing to the reader's understanding of his life, we have decided to include them, because we like to. No other valid reason. Despite the vast majority of us knowing that you'll be disaffected by them, and knowing that we can't tell you one thing that they add to the reader's understanding of the life of the prophet (pbuh), we want to, so we do, and we don't care that you're offended. That is, we don't care enough to remove these totally gratuitous images. On behalf of Misplaced Pages, I'd like to say sorry, but I can't because we're (as a community) not.

Tarc disagreed with my clarification of the situation for the new editor and threatened me with arbitration enforcement if I didn't strike or remove it at User_talk:Anthonyhcole#possible_AE_filing.

Could the committee please clarify for me whether there is a ban in place on discussing the curation of figurative depictions of Muhammad? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment: the community was invited to establish principles concerning the nature and placement of images of Muhammad. Additionally, discretionary sanctions were authorised to curb fresh outbreaks of disruption. Neither of these restrict, nor are intended to restrict, collegiale discussion about the routine replacement or updating of images. Does this answer your question? Or do you have something more specific in mind?  Roger Davies 07:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)