Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Arbitration is generally the final step in the dispute resolution process for user conduct issues that cannot be resolved through discussion on noticeboards.
This page is the central location for discussing the various requests for arbitration processes. Requesting that a case be taken up here isn't likely to help you, but editors active in the dispute resolution community should be able to assist. |
Request for Word Extension
The ARC page says that I can request a word extension by: 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.
Emailing the Clerks list results in a bounce message saying that my email is waiting for moderator review, but there is then no response for two days. I don't want to add the request to my submission itself because, by my count, I am at 498 words. Is the ability to send email to the clerks list supported?
I have been asked questions by another editor about what sanctions I am requesting in the SchroCat RFAR, and the other editor asked that I be given 500 more words. I don't need 500 more words, but am asking for 200 more words to answer their question. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- A reply was sent out yesterday, but I can see there might have been an issue with the addressing. I'll send it again. Sorry for the mix-up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Feedback on editing Workshop phases within the past year
Reading comments about editing the Workshop itself from experienced and inexperienced editors alike—Transgender healthcare and people case, Maghreb case, and SchroCat case—have made me wonder whether they indicate recent difficulties with the Workshop phase, especially for first timers. (Nonetheless, certain editors were able to edit the Workshop all right, despite initial concerns and all.) Or perhaps I'm overreacting, or.....
(Originally posted on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee by me 02:38, 30 April 2026 (UTC); realized that the page wasn't the right venue after all...) George Ho (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Suggested CT/AT revision
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a suggested revision to WP:CT/AT, for request 2A, at WP:ARCA#Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation 2.
The current relevant text is this:
Extended content |
|---|
Contentious topicsContentious topic restrictions are authorized for all pages and discussions related to article titles and capitalisation. The scope of this remedy includes:
|
It could reasonably be changed to this:
Extended content |
|---|
Contentious topicsContentious topic restrictions are authorized for all discussions, at any pages, related to the intersection of article titles and capitalisation. The scope of this remedy includes:
|
This revision does several things:
- Fixes the gross overbreadth. The original version badly interferes with everyday editing, and inappropriately combines two unrelated broad areas into a single CTOP.
- Fixes "and" versus "or" (+ "and/or") confusion.
- Fixes "article" versus "page" confusion, its own accidental overbreadth problem.
- Clarifies that "moving or renaming" means via either means.
- Replaces "phrase" with other wording, since to many minds "phrase" means "two or more juxtaposed words".
- Grammar and punctuation cleanup.
- Keeps a body-text editing line item, to prevent potential system-gaming (someone conceivably might change all occurrences of the term/phrase in the bodycopy, in hopes that other editors will later suggest a page move to agree with all that text).
- Fixed absence of a link (or any other clue) indicating which guideline is among "guidelines mentioned" with regard to capitalisation.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:46, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that the current scope is overly broad. Could you point to some examples where it is "badly interfering with everyday editing"? Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2026 (UTC)