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：设定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，只應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~~~~）。
修改陳述：您应该从一开始就谨慎、简洁撰写陳述。維基百科:討論頁指引 § 編輯意見不允许用戶在经过一段長时间或有人回复后重写以縮短声明。用戶應提交简短的初始陳述，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，力求在必要时靈活處理。
- 仲裁員提出問題後亦會提供回應的字數限制。
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：請注意仲裁委員在必要時會實施適當的限制，確保仲裁程序正常運作。

常規指南

本頁用於陳述而非討論。
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。
除非您是仲裁委員否則無論何種情況，您都不應自行從本頁面刪除請求或開啟仲裁案件（即使是已經接受的請求）。
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。
仲裁員拒絶的立案請求存檔至Wikipedia:仲裁/索引/拒絶立案。仲裁員接受的申請結案後存檔至Wikipedia:仲裁/索引/案件。

請求澄清及修改

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

仲裁員請求動議

快捷方式

此章节可供仲裁委員提出與任何現有案件或請求無關的動議。動議將被存檔於Wikipedia:仲裁/请求/动议/存档。

注意：只有仲裁委員可以在本頁提出動議或參與投票。

提出動議（僅限仲裁委員）

您可以在「社群討論」的部分發表評論，或者在某些情況下僅限於您自己的段落中發表意見。仲裁委員可以刪除或重構任何評論。

合併仲裁執行與澄清及修正布告板

因兩頁面無分立必要，現動議：

將仲裁執行與澄清及修正布告板兩者合而為一，並更名為「執行及復議」（位於維基百科:仲裁/請求/執行及復議），並調整仲裁方針或本會流程有關段落。另提議將方針或流程中舶來翻譯「澄清及修正」一詞更名為「復議」，具體內涵不變。

以上。查本會現有委員總額為十位，且無人迴避，故應以支持者六人以上為絕對多數。—— Eric Liu_{創造は生命（留言・留名・學生會）} 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/請求/執行移动至仲裁/請求/執行及復議；重定向仲裁/請求/澄清及修正至仲裁/請求/執行及復議；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]

這幾天比較忙，之後有空會處理。—— Eric Liu_{創造は生命（留言・留名・學生會）} 2025年1月20日 (一) 18:27 (UTC)[回复]

支持

如題。—— Eric Liu_{創造は生命（留言・留名・學生會）} 2025年1月13日 (一) 13:43 (UTC)[回复]
無異議。--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]
無異議。--薏仁將🍀 2025年1月14日 (二) 00:16 (UTC)[回复]

反對

中立或棄權

委員討論

(？)疑問 @Ericliu1912：我好奇Wikidata的多语言链接要怎么关联。原有的仲裁執行（wikidata:Q131567261）和澄清及修正（wikidata:Q131567259）两个页面不删除，但一起硬重定向到維基百科:仲裁/請求/執行及復議？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]

將前者移動標題，後者重新導向之，保留維基數據項目。—— Eric Liu_{創造は生命（留言・留名・學生會）} 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]

社群討論

修订“仲裁员缺席”一节

鄙人在和某位維基好友聊天時發現此節存在一些謬誤之處，現提議：

提議條文

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則可被假定為不活躍。不活躍者在任何阶段的仲裁事务投票则视作回归仲裁工作。活躍的仲裁员亦可公開聲明自己不活躍，則其在當前進行的仲裁事務的投票將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]
無異議。--薏仁將🍀 2025年1月19日 (日) 08:46 (UTC)[回复]
無異議。~~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]

反對

中立或棄權

委員討論

@人间百态：你這個備註好像有問題？—— Eric Liu_{創造は生命（留言・留名・學生會）} 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]

社群討論

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]

請求強制執行

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
以灰色標註者尚未正式啟用
一般	管理員行政員仲裁委员会教育專案首頁錯誤志愿者回覆團隊監督權限一般機器人機器用户解除權限
條目與內容	疑似侵權可靠來源尋求資源垃圾链接黑名單白名單標題黑名單白名單受限制文件翻譯
頁面處理	合併匯入發送大量訊息移動机器人作业保護刪除修訂版本存廢討論頁面檔案覆核查詢已刪除內容
用户行為	利益衝突著作权调查破壞編輯爭議其他不當行為禁制傀儡調查調查助理不當用户名仲裁请求立案澄清及修正动议
其他	更改用户名防濫用過濾器新增或修改回報錯誤問題知識問答新條目徵求意見分類索引討論頁話題索引互助客棧消息方針技術求助條目探討其他字詞轉換地区词候选修復請求各地維基人
維基百科布告板