一般规定：大多数提交给仲裁委员会的材料（包括仲裁案件请求中的陈述以及仲裁案件中的证据提交）限制为1000字，含最多100个差异链接。
动机：设置字数限制旨在促进清晰表达和聚焦问题，并确保仲裁员能够充分理解提交的内容。仲裁员需阅读涉及多项事务的大量信息，因此超出字数限制的提交内容或被节删。为了公平及防止投机行为（即避免“先斩后奏”的情况）起见，字数限制将被严格执行。
分段讨论：用户应仅编辑自己的章节。您的提交应面向仲裁员，而非其他参与者。如果您希望仲裁员参考对其他提交内容进行反驳、澄清或引用，只应在自己的部分中进行。
签名：为便于仲裁员及其他参与者了解提交内容的顺序，按讨论页指引，请在每次提交或新增内容时签名（使用~~~~）。
修改陈述：您应该从一开始就谨慎、简洁撰写陈述。维基百科:讨论页指引 § 编辑意见不允许用户在经过一段长时间或有人回复后重写以缩短声明。用户应提交简短的初始陈述，以便在必要时留出回复其他用户的空间。
调高字数限制：您可以在提交内容中申请调高字数限制。在申请中，您应简要（一两句话）说明（一）为什么需要增加字数和（二）概述您希望在延长的提交内容中讨论的内容。仲裁委员会会尽快处理调高字数限制请求，力求在必要时灵活处理。
- 仲裁员提出问题后亦会提供回应的字数限制。
超出字数限制：超出字数限制的提交内容会被折叠，仲裁员可能不予考虑。
制裁：请注意仲裁委员在必要时会实施适当的限制，确保仲裁程序正常运作。

常规指南

本页用于陈述而非讨论。
仲裁员可对陈述无需事先通知地进行改写或删除，包括但不限于无关紧要或不具建设性的发言。
被封禁的用户可以通过仲裁委员会联系页面申请仲裁，请勿尝试编辑本页面。
除非您是仲裁委员否则无论何种情况，您都不应自行从本页面删除请求或开启仲裁案件（即使是已经接受的请求）。
在请求提交后，仲裁委员会委员将投票决定是否接受该案件。<0/0/0>的计数分别对应仲裁员的接受/拒绝/回避票数。
仲裁员拒绝的立案请求存档至Wikipedia:仲裁/索引/拒绝立案。仲裁员接受的申请结案后存档至Wikipedia:仲裁/索引/案件。

请求澄清及修改

Use this section 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!)

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.
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
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.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Template:ARCA archive navbox

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 Wikipedia, 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 Template:Clerks-l. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:

Template:ARCA archive navbox

仲裁员请求动议

快捷方式

此章节可供仲裁委员提出与任何现有案件或请求无关的动议。动议将被存档于Wikipedia:仲裁/请求/动议/存档。

注意：只有仲裁委员可以在本页提出动议或参与投票。

提出动议（仅限仲裁委员）

您可以在“社群讨论”的部分发表评论，或者在某些情况下仅限于您自己的段落中发表意见。仲裁委员可以删除或重构任何评论。

合并仲裁执行与澄清及修正布告板

因两页面无分立必要，现动议：

将仲裁执行与澄清及修正布告板两者合而为一，并更名为“执行及复议”（位于维基百科:仲裁/请求/执行及复议），并调整仲裁方针或本会流程有关段落。另提议将方针或流程中舶来翻译“澄清及修正”一词更名为“复议”，具体内涵不变。

以上。查本会现有委员总额为十位，且无人回避，故应以支持者六人以上为绝对多数。—— Eric Liu_{創造は生命（留言・留名・学生会）} 2025年1月13日 (一) 13:29 (UTC)[回复]

动议名称	支持数	反对数	弃权数	状态	尚须支持数	备注
合并仲裁执行与澄清及修正布告板	6	0	0	已核准	/	仲裁/请求/执行移动至仲裁/请求/执行及复议；重定向仲裁/请求/澄清及修正至仲裁/请求/执行及复议；一并调整相应方针流程内容。

@仲裁委员会：按照仲裁委员会委员投票所展现的共识，该动议已获通过。——敬颂冬绥 ZhaoFJx_(论•签) 2025年1月14日 (二) 02:14 (UTC)[回复]

这几天比较忙，之后有空会处理。—— Eric Liu_{創造は生命（留言・留名・学生会）} 2025年1月20日 (一) 18:27 (UTC)[回复]

支持

如题。—— Eric Liu_{創造は生命（留言・留名・学生会）} 2025年1月13日 (一) 13:43 (UTC)[回复]
无异议。--Allervous 迷い星のように叫ぼう 2025年1月13日 (日) 00:25 (UTC)[回复]
同Eric Liu君。--人间百态,独尊变态 (讨论)(签名) 2025年1月13日 (一) 14:49 (UTC)[回复]
敬颂冬绥 ZhaoFJx_(论•签) 2025年1月13日 (一) 15:36 (UTC)[回复]
同。--Borschts⁺ 2025年1月13日 (一) 20:47 (UTC)[回复]
无异议。--薏仁将🍀 2025年1月14日 (二) 00:16 (UTC)[回复]

反对

中立或弃权

委员讨论

(？)疑问 @Ericliu1912：我好奇Wikidata的多语言链接要怎么关联。原有的仲裁执行（wikidata:Q131567261）和澄清及修正（wikidata:Q131567259）两个页面不删除，但一起硬重定向到维基百科:仲裁/请求/执行及复议？亦或是直接不与enwiki对应，不关联这几个页面？——敬颂冬绥 ZhaoFJx_(论•签) 2025年1月13日 (一) 15:12 (UTC)[回复]

将前者移动标题，后者重定向之，保留维基数据项目。—— Eric Liu_{創造は生命（留言・留名・学生会）} 2025年1月13日 (一) 15:30 (UTC)[回复]

谢谢解答。——敬颂冬绥 ZhaoFJx_(论•签) 2025年1月13日 (一) 15:36 (UTC)[回复]

社群讨论

修订“仲裁员缺席”一节

鄙人在和某位维基好友聊天时发现此节存在一些谬误之处，现提议：

提议条文

仲裁员若七天内未参与进行的仲裁事务或已向委员会请假则可被假定为不活跃。不活跃者在任何阶段的仲裁事务投票则视作回归仲裁工作。活跃的仲裁员亦可公开声明自己不活跃，则其在当前进行的仲裁事务的投票将被划票并不纳入计算。

@仲裁委员会：以上。——人间百态,独尊变态 (讨论)(签名) 2025年1月18日 (六) 15:59 (UTC)[回复]

动议名称	支持数	反对数	弃权数	状态	尚须支持数	备注
修订“仲裁员缺席”一节	5	0	0	进行中……	1

支持

如上--人间百态,独尊变态 (讨论)(签名) 2025年1月19日 (日) 05:09 (UTC)[回复]
无异议。--薏仁将🍀 2025年1月19日 (日) 08:46 (UTC)[回复]
无异议。~~S i d~~ 2025年1月19日 (日) 13:09 (UTC)[回复]
支持。--Borschts⁺ 2025年1月19日 (日) 14:10 (UTC)[回复]
有道理。——敬颂冬绥 ZhaoFJx_(论•签) 2025年1月19日 (日) 23:07 (UTC)[回复]

反对

中立或弃权

委员讨论

@人间百态：你这个备注好像有问题？—— Eric Liu_{創造は生命（留言・留名・学生会）} 2025年1月19日 (日) 10:09 (UTC)[回复]
已修正。--人间百态,独尊变态 (讨论)(签名) 2025年1月19日 (日) 11:00 (UTC)[回复]
@人间百态：计划如何定义“仲裁事务”？——敬颂冬绥 ZhaoFJx_(论•签) 2025年1月19日 (日) 23:16 (UTC)[回复]
在下认为“仲裁事务”应该包括最终结论的投票和动议投票。--人间百态,独尊变态 (讨论)(签名) 2025年1月20日 (一) 08:43 (UTC)[回复]
@人间百态：比方说动议有7天投票期，如果没有在这7天内表态，便被视为不活跃？——敬颂冬绥 ZhaoFJx_(论•签) 2025年1月20日 (一) 22:57 (UTC)[回复]
可以这么理解。--人间百态,独尊变态 (讨论)(签名) 2025年1月21日 (二) 03:21 (UTC)[回复]

社群讨论

不知道两位仲裁员沟通是否完整，个人意见是仲裁员若七天内未参与进行的仲裁事务中的仲裁事务指公开讨论、内部讨论、私有维基编辑、投票等事务，而之后当前进行的仲裁事务的投票则是指案件任意流程投票、动议投票、任何内部投票等。请你们讨论一下这种定义是否合理。beef [talk] 2025年1月21日 (二) 02:39 (UTC)[回复]

请求强制执行

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

快捷方式

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Template:Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

查论编布告板
以灰色标注者尚未正式启用
一般	管理员行政员仲裁委员会教育项目首页错误志愿者回复团队监督权限一般机器人机器用户解除权限
条目与内容	疑似侵权可靠来源寻求资源垃圾链接黑名单白名单标题黑名单白名单受限制文件翻译
页面处理	合并导入发送大量讯息移动机器人作业保护删除修订版本存废讨论页面文件复核查询已删除内容
用户行为	利益冲突著作权调查破坏编辑争议其他不当行为禁制傀儡调查调查助理不当用户名仲裁请求立案澄清及修正动议
其他	更改用户名防滥用过滤器新增或修改回报错误问题知识问答新条目征求意见分类索引讨论页话题索引互助客栈消息方针技术求助条目探讨其他字词转换地区词候选修复请求各地维基人
维基百科布告板