This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs) at 05:29, 1 January 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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

Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough

Initiated by Rich Farmbrough, 05:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC).

Case affected

Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Finding 8

Strike this finding completely.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Information about amendment request

Statement by your username

The finding reads

Error: No text given for quotation (or equals sign used in the actual argument to an unnamed parameter)

Let us analyse the block logs rreferred to in the finding:

There are a total of six unblocks by Rich Farmbrough on HPB's block log

1. 22:20, 30 April 2012

   Procedural unblock

2. 00:29, 2 April 2012

   Procedural unblock

3. 19:03, 14 March 2012

   Summary makes it clear that the problem is fixed and User:NuclearWarfare had said "Feel free to unblock without asking me whenever you get that bug fixed."

4. 23:39, 17 October 2011

   Unblock of temporary self block

5. 15:26, 16 September 2011

   Procedural unblock

Hence none of these fit the criteria

There are a total of seven unblocks by Rich Farmbrough on the SmackBot block log

Of a block by Fram (re-blocked by MSGJ)

1. 09:14, 3 February 2011 and
2. 15:56, 2 February 2011

   Fram was completely clear in this comment "I have no objection to you unblocking the bot solely to continue with the "build p605" edits"

3. 13:16, 29 August 2010

   Ucucha says "Feel free to unblock when you've fixed the problem"

4. 08:52, 4 May 2010

   CBM says "Unblocking your own bot in order to avoid fixing would be an abuse of your administrator abilities. However, I assume that in this case you have fixed the problem before unblocking the bot"

5. 10:33, 28 December 2009

   Arthur Rubin said "Sorry. Feel free to unblock"

6. 18:39, 9 December 2007

   Ryan Postlethwaite said "Feel free to unblock when it's corrected." and later said "sorry for making the block. Feel free to unblock when you're ready"

7. 13:17, 24 December 2006

   It is clearly stated in the unblock summary that the contentious task has been stopped.

So rather than their being "many" occasions, there are in fact zero occasions.

Rich Farmbrough, 05:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC).

Statement by {other user}

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion