Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/archive7

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've just updated the archive box located at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Front matter with this edit. It is something that rarely gets done, and almost always some time after a new archive page has been created. Not sure if it can be done automatically. Ironically, as I was typing this, the archiving bot created the next page along (see the page history for Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 18). So that now needs adding to that archive box. Is this something that clerks would be willing to do, or have on a list of things to keep updated? Carcharoth (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC) PS. There is also a strange stray April section at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 16, I think it was due to manual archiving by an arbitrator to the wrong location.

There are some sections at WT:AC/N (the arbitration noticeboard talk page) that are not archiving properly. I think this is because those posting sections on the talk page are not dating them, and the archive bot is only picking up sections where people comment as that provides a date for the archive bot to latch on to. This has been fixed with this edit, but it might be an idea to document this somewhere so it doesn't get forgotten again. Carcharoth (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It is documented at WP:AC/C/P. I think it was just a small matter of new clerks not knowing how to do everything correctly yet. NW (Talk) 15:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Glkanter initially had a one year ban per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem#Glkanter banned. As noted at an MfD discssion, Arbcom Member Elen of the Roads changed the block settings for Glkanter on 22 June 2012 to indefinite and additionally added a block on the email due to reasons listed in the MfD. I'm not sure where you note these things, but perhaps the bottom of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem needs to be modified to reflect the Arbcom change in blocking of Glkanter and further restriction on email usage. Also, User talk:Glkanter and User:Glkanter should show a link to the arbcom decision, but I don't know what template to use for that. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you guys handle this or can regular admins like me take care of it: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_TrevelyanL85A2? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like something regular admins can take care of. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

With the seventh vote from David Fuchs this measure should be listed as being passed in the implementation notes, and there are other votes from David that need to be tallied.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I update the notes about once a day, so occasionally it may fall a bit behind. So, don't fret if you see the notes don't take account of some new votes, it just means me or another clerk are busy. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Traditionally (defined as "in 2007 when I was a clerk") we posted the implementation notes near the end of the case, just to make sure everyone was in agreement about what was passing. Over time, we occasionally had an instance where an arbitrator would ask for the notes earlier (to see how first and second choices on alternatives were being tallied, for example), but only where there was a specific reason for them. I'm not sure it's necessary to post implementation notes right after the proposed decision is posted (at which point nothing at all will be passing) and then have to keep updating them. I wonder how other arbs and clerks (and other editors too of course) might feel about this—if the way it's being done now is useful it should continue, but I hate to have extra work that doesn't help much. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly one way or the other about keeping a constant tally; practically speaking though, I think at least creating the template (a somewhat annoying task) at the beginning at bottom is a way to get important work done in non-crunch time and at top a way for both arbitrators and editors generally to visually 'see' the organization of the decision. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The running implementation notes are valuable in that they make obvious the brinksmanship/gamesmanship that has in the past casued "If A then not B otherwise C" voting. Hipocrite (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Since I started clerking cases, the tendancy has moved forward towards more regular updating. I feel that that is a Good Thing™ as it helps clarify voting as it progresses. It is also, for me, easier to keep a track of what is passing and what is not, especially when there are the 'first choice / second choice / only choice / only iff 3.1.1(a)(i) passes' calculations. The most complicated task is the initial calculation and set-up of the template. Updating is an easier task.

That said, all the clerks are volunteers, and if a case clerk wants to update the implementation notes every six hours, I see no reason to prevent them doing so, and if another chooses to wait longer, we should not be overly concerned either. I would absolutely resist any attempt to codify when they should first be calculated, and at what frequency they be updated. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Alex --Guerillero | My Talk 12:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. As I think about it, the change may have come about because the typical case before the Committee is more complicated than it used to be. A lot of cases were resolved through arbitration in earlier years that today would be handled by a single administrator or in an AN/ANI thread, and typically ArbCom gets only the more complicated disputes. When I was clerking, there were times that the implementation notes were something like "everything passes," which obviously didn't require a templated voting chart, etc. Obviously there aren't many cases like that these days (although we did have a few in the early part of 2011). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a minor point but the case summary for the Perth decision omits the usual username links. Those links are, IMO, more helpful than the link to Perth, and are usually included (see other noticeboard summaries). Can they be added to this summary? Also, if any arbitrators are reading this, I noted (with others) on the noticeboard talk page thread that the final decision might have been clearer if fleshed out a bit more by the arbitrators before the case closed. It certainly caused some confusion among some admins, as I get the impression they were looking at this decision trying to work out why some admins were desysopped and some not, and it wasn't awfully clear if you hadn't been following the case. Carcharoth (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I can add the links to the userpages to the announcement on AC/N if you like. It won't hurt. Whilst we have a template for the basic layouts of motions and case closures, there is no fixed MOS, and the redaction is entirely up to the clerk making the announcement. I know that I've added in the userlinks when I've copied the text of the remedies to the announcement, but this is not something that we tell trainees to do. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

From memory, the proposed decisions only use the userlinks at the first appearance on the page. If the remedy being copied to the summary doesn't include those, that might explain it. I do think username links should be in the summary, but I'm neither an arb nor a clerk (just a former arb who still follows things here and there). I'm only making a suggestion here. It's entirely up to the arbs and clerks whether this is done. Carcharoth (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I was looking a bit further into some of the circumstances of the Perth case, and one point that came up at the noticeboard talk page discussion was that kwami appeared to have not being paying close attention to the arbitration case and either wasn't aware of, or wasn't taking seriously, the desysop motion (the desysop motions were added on to the initial proposed decision with the following edits by Courcelles and SilkTork [1], [2], [3]. My view is that when initial proposed decisions are expanded like this, arbs and clerks should take care to ensure that any user facing increased or new sanctions are notified). I know this is something that kwami should have noticed himself, but it might have helped if clerks were willing to add notifications to the parties to a case when the proposed decision is posted, and for both arbs and clerks to notify users if new sanctions are posted in the middle of voting on a proposed decision, and also to be aware that one of the parties is conspicious by their absence from the talk page of the proposed decision? It is easy to say that this is just adding more work, but I think it would be reasonable to do this. Would it be possible to consider these points? Carcharoth (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll let other clerks and arbitrators chime in here, but my initial reaction is that if I had been notified by a clerk that I was an involved party in an arbitration case, then I'd be paying close attention. I think a notification for every new sanction is overkill, but there is merit in announcing that the initial proposed decision has been posted. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. A short "This is to inform you that the drafting arbitrator has posted a proposed decision here" couldn't hurt. -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree. I think that the current trend to add more and more notifications to a clerk's duties is starting to turn us into facebook's notification feature. Editors, especially admins, are expected to follow and participate in the cases that they are involved in. If an editor chooses to not participate, it is their loss. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • In the past, such notifications were used (this may be a few years ago now). In this case, with so few parties it is not an onerous task at all (I would have done so myself and urged them to speak up on their own behalf, except I assumed with the numbers speaking up on their behalf that they were aware of it - in all probability, they were aware, but maybe making a conscious choice to stay away).

    To my mind, making sure that the parties to a case are aware of and engaged with the case is an important part of the dual role of arbs and clerks. More important than (say) ensuring the implementation notes are constantly updated during the case (these are really only needed towards the end of a case). Someone from among the arbs and clerks should have noticed that despite the large number of editors posting to the Perth case proposed decision talk page, nothing had been heard of directly from two of the users facing sanctions (namely kwami and Gnangarra).

    Watchlists and formal initial notifications are all very well, but there is no substitute for actual human checks and interaction. It's a bit like the judges and clerks to a court case not noticing that the defendant hasn't actually turned up to the court. When I was an arb, one of the things I looked for was what the parties to a case said and did during the case, and specifically trying to ascertain why they were not saying anything if they were remaining silent. I would hope that is something every arb still does as a matter of course, but that may no longer be the case.

    On clerking duties, clerking and notifications should not be seen as a chore, but part of making sure a case runs smoothly, which includes making sure that lines of communication remain open between parties to a case and the arbitrators, and that the noise made by others does not obscure that. The other point (which argues against mid-case notifications, unless of course someone is added as a party) is that if you only notify of the proposed decision, someone could look at the initial version in which they are only being admonished, accept that, maybe even post some apology for what they did to be admonished, and then go on a wikibreak, only to find that on their return that the sanctions had been upgraded to desysopping and passed in their absence. This is why parties need to follow cases for the entirety of the case, not just parts of it. I do remember (a few years ago) specifically notifying some parties to cases when sanctions were upgraded from something lesser to desysopping (or maybe a ban). It just seemed like the right thing to do at the time. If things are done differently now, fair enough, but I thought the point was worth raising.

    One final point. Guerillero correctly points to the Thumperward finding, but that shouldn't be used as a 'gotcha' or precedent. If that principle and finding applied to this case, a similar set of principles and findings should have been voted on and passed. Overall, maybe it is possible that this case received less attention and care than other cases that were in progress at the same time (I should make clear that this closing point is a criticism of the arbitrators, not the clerks). I'm probably not going to file a request for clarification (as I suggested at the noticeboard talk page) because of what has just been pointed out there, but I do think this case could have been handled better. Carcharoth (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

    • I'm sorry, Carc, but that makes to sense to me. Editors are well notified when a case involving them is opened or when they are added as a party; and if they then choose to ignore the proceedings it's unreasonable to hold their hands. Should that warning also be updated if a remedy now passes or fail, or if an arb proposes an alternative?

      Especially in the case of an administrator – where responsiveness to interrogations about their actions is a requirement – neglecting or refusing to participate and keep an eye on the highest level of formal DR when one is involved is inexcusable, and most certainly should not be accepted as an excuse or defence for anything. — Coren ^(talk) 13:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

      • That seems a reasonable position if you stick to letter of what seems to be required. However, especially when cases can take weeks or months (this was a fairly quick case, but others have been longer), I think it is also reasonable to be aware that a party to a case is not participating and to make at least some token follow-up along the lines of "do you intend to participate in the case? Have you been following the case? Are you going to present any defence?" That at least shows a willingness on the part of arbs to interact with the parties and to notice that a party is not participating (even if many other editors are). What I can't see here is any indication that arbs and clerks were aware that two of the parties had (essentially) left the building, or were in another part of the building, at the time the proposed decision was posted.

        Gnangarra in particular didn't edit from 7 July until 21 July; Kwami edited every day in the same period but ignored the case. They both ignored the case, but in different ways. If any arbs and clerks are willing to say so, did they actually notice this or not? I can't see any on-wiki evidence that this was noticed. (I've said that I completely missed this, mainly due to following the impassioned pleas from other editors, so it's possible that everyone else missed it as well). Sure, arbs and clerks can say it is not their responsibility to be aware of this, but that seems to be backing away from the issue. If I had become aware that two of the parties were essentially absent, I'd have said something, and I hope others would have as well. It's basic human courtesy. It's not needed, but I'd hope some would do it anyway.

        There is also the case where a party to a case (maybe saying they will be away at some point over the following weeks, or busy at work in the coming week, or something like that) may ask the clerks to notify them on their talk page or by e-mail when the proposed decision is posted. I would hope clerks would agree to do that, or at least have some standard response to that that isn't along the lines of "that's not in my job description". I would myself suggest that if a party to a case wants to have personal notification served about the posting of a proposed decision, that they ask the drafting arbitrator on their talk page. That would be safest all round. Maybe also add something to the notification about a case saying that this is the only formal notification that will be left, and it is up to parties to cases to participate in and follow the cases themselves? Carcharoth (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Carc, Kwami was editing and Gnangarra at no time contacted to say he was going to be away from his computer. If someone makes the clerks aware that they will be away, cases can be extended, revised deadlines set, all sorts of things done - as you already know. The editor in question has to pipe up and say something though. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but that completely avoids my question. I've yet to find an arb or clerk willing to say whether they were even aware that kwami and Gnangarra were avoiding the case. It becomes obvious when you look at their contributions, but I don't get the feeling any arbs or clerks bothered to check this sort of thing. It's not required, but it is something I would have done. Usually, in each iteration of arbs and clerks, you do find someone willing to take the time to check that sort of thing. Carcharoth (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"I've yet to find an arb or clerk willing to say": seriously, it has not even been 24 hours since your first post. I'm fairly sure that few of us have even noticed this thread, let alone had time to respond. Did I notice? No. Was I case clerk? No. Was I busy with my own case? Yes. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I should wait longer to see if any arbs or clerks active on this case (I thought the caveat was too obvious to add) are willing to say anything. Apologies for that. Carcharoth (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• When a case is opened, do not the "watchlist this page" links work for everyone? As an arb, I use them on every case. I would expect a party to use all four on at least one case. At the very least, watchlisting a proposed decision is prudent. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • And, these pages are updated frequently so it should shoot up right to the top. -- Lord Roem (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Responding to all of the above (including the ill-considered melodramatic statement by Coren): while some say it is "unreasonable to hold their hands", I can recall one case in 2009 where a clerk was being very helpful notifying not just parties, but workshop participants that a proposed decision is up for voting. He also gave the target date in his notification. That also involved an administrator who ended up desysopped, and although I was a non-party participant, I appreciated the notification at the time (and I'm pretty sure parties were appreciative too). But in this case, I'm not sure it would have amounted to much - mainly due to the circumstances I note below.
    • I think the circumstances of this case speak for themselves. Proposals were placed in the workshop by drafters; these received comments from some arbitrators, parties, and others. But one of the arbitrators, Courcelles, avoided participating in the workshop and chose to post 2 significant proposals (for desysopping) on the PD which were (apparently) neither contemplated by the drafter nor commented on by the Community at the workshop (in fact, at the time, no user from the Community made the proposal on the workshop which should have said something). Somehow, I think the Community would sooner find that what this arbitrator did was inexcusable, rather than the party's choice to avoid participating in the drama-filled arbitration at all. Another arbitrator already received a criticism on their talk page about one of the proposals they posted post-workshop with a view of getting another surprise desysop remedy to stick, so I don't think those details need to be restated again. Of course, I do agree that administrators must be prepared to be responsive when questions and comments are directed to them - but I do not think the requirement is so unreasonably exhaustive as to proposals in this context, unless the person(s) making proposals personally request for their input on specific proposals or points. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
      • That is a very good point. Desysop (and ban) remedies should be discussed on the workshop prior to the proposed decision being posted. In this case it seems it was 'obvious' to some arbitrators that desysopping was on the table. If it had been raised in the workshop, some of the community disquiet at the remedies might have been aired earlier, and might have led to a more considered decision. There is a tendency for the workshop to just be a discussion of prinicples and findings, with arbitrators wanting to reserve the remedies for the actual proposed decision, but there should maybe be some push back against that. But first, you would have to work out what to do about arbitrators who (somewhat understandably) just ignore the workshop pages altogether as 'hopeless' (I agree they are sometimes hopeless, but the answer is to engage on them, not ignore them). I would also question why the drafter posted the decision and then stepped back and let others do the 'dirty work' of posting the desysop proposals. Would have been better to post them as part of the initial proposed decision. Also, would have been nice to have specific questions directed at the parties to the case, and notices left on their talk pages, and then seen if they would have just ignored that. Carcharoth (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Apologies to the clerks for going off on a tangent on issues more related to the duties of arbitrators, maybe this part of the discussion should resume back at the arbitration noticeboard talk page?
        • Probably... :) -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
        • To be fair, there were two drafters. One of the drafters posted a proposed decision on the workshop page (which was later the initial proposed decision posted on the PD page). If any other arb wanted to make a different proposal like desysop or banning, he/she should have made such proposal in his/her section in the workshop onwiki. As there was no indication to this effect, I wouldn't direct the question to the drafter who posted the initial PD. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Was the admin put on notice that an desysop motion was possible? For instance, was this mentioned in the Workshop so that they would have chance to present defenses or mitigating circumstances? Nothing in arbitration should be a surprise. If something pops up out of the blue late in the process when the accused has no chance to respond, that is problematic. A clerk leaving a talk page message notifying them isn't really sufficient, because it's only given them a chance to give input after arbitrators have mostly made up their minds. Jehochman ^Talk 01:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

All three admins should arguably have realised that they might face desysop motions, but two ignored the case. One went on wikibreak. Another just got on with editing. The initial proposed decision only had admonishments. The desysop motions were added later (see the diffs I gave above). A mini-petition on the proposed decision talk page seemed to sway enough arbs to result in two of the desysop motions not passing, but the third one did. That happened to be the admin who ignored the case while still editing (the admin who went on a break has since resumed editing). No notification of the desysop motions were given (see reasons articulated above) and it was a surprise to the admin that got desysopped (kwamikagami), as can be seen here. Some of the more cynical might not believe some of that, but I would AGF and come to the conclusion that something did go wrong here and things could be done better in future. If you (Jehochman) haven't been following the case, it is worth taking a look as someone with no preconceptions to see what you think of how the various aspects were handled and whether you agree with my summary above and the points raised here and elsewhere by others (such as at the WP:AC/N thread). Carcharoth (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the case when it opened, but did not follow because it seemed like a big dispute about nothing. It was a great opportunity to pour tea and remind experienced editors to set a better example for others, rather than letting emotions take charge.

We have no idea whether the admins under investigation were watching the case or not. Sometimes it is wise to remain quiet when there is nothing to add to the discussion. (I've been doing this myself. Notice how little I've been commenting lately, thought I still look at Wikipedia daily.) If the case was meandering along toward a result of admonishments, perhaps the admins felt that was a proper result and chose to remain silent. When the desysop motions suddenly appeared on the proposed decision, that changed things, but too late. Those motions should have been mooted on the workshop pages. Checking over those pages now, I see no serious desysop proposals related to the three admins who are mentioned in the decision. That strikes me as odd. The workshop should be a superset of what appears on the proposed decision page.

I think the drafting arbitrators created a surprise, and the voting arbitrators, except Newyorkbrad, went along uncritically. It would have been better to restrict any final sanctions to what was actually discussed with the parties and the community in the workshop. If desysopping were necessary, somebody would have proposed it in the workshop. Jehochman ^Talk 12:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Jehochman, the proposed decision that I originally posted included admonishments, but didn't contain any desyop proposals, these were added later by another arbitrator. PhilKnight (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

... and not the secondary drafter, either. Jclemens (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I see. Who threw the curveball or screwball as the case may be? Why did everybody go along with this remedy without prior discussion? Wouldn't it have been better to put this possible outcome on the table, instead of saving it for a last minute ambush? Jehochman ^Talk 19:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Jehochman, see the very first post I made in this thread. I give the diffs there where Courcelles and Silktork add the additional proposed sanctions. To be fair, this sort of lightweight draft proposed decision, followed by beefing it up or watering it down (if a hardline arb drafted the decision) as other arbs have their say, is the way that cases were done in my time as well. It is a way to iterate towards a proposed decision that all arbs can agree on. The downside being that it can be hard for parties following the case to understand or see the justification, as they (understandably) hope that arbs are looking at the evidence primarily, rather than jockeying around a hard to discern line in the sand (a campaign line in the sand for some arbs, according to some comments that were made on the proposed decision talk page). My gripe comes from the fact that if this sort of drafting is to be done on the proposed decision, the arbs should make sure that all the parties are present and correct to watch this jockeying around, rather than assuming the parties are watching (maybe some arbs don't really care if the parties are present or not). It turns out that one of the parties to the case had been on a break for several weeks (Gnangarra), and another party to the case (Kwamikagami) was not paying close attention (never posted to the case pages except to make an initial statement at the acceptance stage), but was busy editing this encyclopedia. Another party was fully engaged (JHunterJ) and another posted a section on the talk page titled 'The Horror' (Deacon of Pndapetzim). To be fair, there was a lot of noise from other editors that may have obscured the facts about the presence or absence of the actual parties to the case. Carcharoth (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Noise at arbitration is the norm. Carcharoth, had Kwamikagami been notified somehow, what would they have done differently? Might they have appeared and said, "I'm so sorry for this mistake, I won't let it happen again?" Would that have been enough to resolve concerns for a few of the arbitrators? Jehochman ^Talk 00:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. We will never know for sure. What we do know is that two of the parties were not participating and I've yet to see any sign that any of the arbs noticed this. The normal thing to do in such cases is to go to their talk page and ask them (in kwami's case as he was actively editing) if they intend to say anything on the case pages. And in Gnangarra's case to say "I see you are on a wikibreak...." (though the follow-up there is more difficult, as the reason for the wikibreak is not clear and might be a private matter). What is not normal is just to shrug and mentally think 'don't care if they aren't going to say anything, makes no difference to me'. It goes right to heart of what it means to dispense justice fairly. I prefer to think that all the arbs just failed to notice, rather than noticed and didn't care. Now, having said this, I may have missed some sign that kwami or Gnangarra were participating in or aware of the progress of the case. Were there e-mails? All I do know is that there were cases when I was an arbitrator where we explicitly left notifications (both on talk pages and by e-mail) that desysop and/or ban motions had been proposed. As I said (way above), that may no longer be the norm, but at the least the initial case notifications should be reworded with strong language that says parties to cases should follow cases once they have opened as they won't get any other formal notifications and could face anything up to and including a desysop and/or ban. That is a compromise position that I hope arbs and clerks may agree to follow in future cases. Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing new initial notifications to that effect. They haven't been updated in a long time, so an overhaul wouldn't be a bad idea. -- Lord Roem (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Do they go at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment? I know someone would just move it to the right place, but it's simpler just to get it right first time. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Appeals of discretionary sanctions are usually handled on the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. PhilKnight (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm choosing to appeal direct to the Committee, as I'm entitled to. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

So does anyone want to tell me where it needs to be posted, or shall I just choose myself? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 18:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure ONiH but you might need to do it via email to the ban appeals list: arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org. Or to the committee directly (the details are all at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee)--Cailil ^talk 18:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure. I think that email would be the best place; if you would like your request to stay on wiki, I think that Clarification and Amendment would be a better location. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe that's just for the BASC, who don't handle discretionary sanctions appeal requests. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee reads "The BASC does not hear appeals of arbitration enforcement actions under the discretionary sanctions system; under the Appeals procedure of that system, final appeals of discretionary sanction actions are heard by the full committee (usually on the committee's public hearings pages)". Obviously it's simpler for everyone if I post it on the right page to start with, apparently this is something that hasn't been done before.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 18:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It's actually not clear whether an appeal from an AE sanction to the Committee would be treated as a new case or as a clarification/amendment. I think you can file it either way, while will focus the arbitrators and clerks on whether it's in the right place or not. You can even mention when you file it that you raised the issue here. My initial instinct was to say it doesn't matter much, but on reflection it actually might (e.g. in terms of voting procedure) so we'll need to decide.

Re Cailil's point, the requirement that appeals should be by e-mail to the Committee refers only to blocked or banned users, who can't post their appeal on the arbitration page. It does not apply to users who are subject only to topic-bans or other discretionary sanctions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it one of the functions of the clerks to hat off-topic discussions, etc.? Bearing in mind that the topic in the very heated current clarification request (please note, NOT a "case", just a request for clarification) was basically this: I would put forward that the ban is currently doing more harm than good because it encourages off-topic discussion on RfAs, and as such either the ban should be lifted entirely so that the discussion can take place where it would make more sense and less interrupt the RfAs themselves, or the explanation should be extended to cover discussion on all parts of the RfA process so as to be effective. … then the quite-clearly-off-topic discussion motions currently residing on the page should surely be appropriately hatted? That might, just possibly, be an effective damage-limitation exercise. Pesky (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The only edits we make to the arb discussion section on the Clarifications/Amendments page are updating the majority tally, enacting motions, fixing small wording issues that result in no substantive change (i.e. misspelling), and fixing indents in comments (i.e. making sure something that was struck by an arbitrator is indented so as to not disrupt the count). For further information about the duties of Clerks, this is a short but comprehensive summary. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

We work at the committee's discretion and direction and have no authority to reverse any committee action. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

What a shame. Pesky (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I see that some other Arbitration cases maintain a log of editors who are formally warned about sanctions authorized by ARBCOM, while WP:ARBIPA has no such logs. And I do find some editors who are given warnings per the ARBIPA (like: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). Can a log be maintained for this case also, will help in enforcement. Thanks --SMS ^Talk 21:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• That would be WP:ARBIPA#List of editors placed on notice. You should feel free to add those warnings to the log. NW (Talk) 21:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh thanks! I missed that. --SMS ^Talk 23:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

For the first current Motion, it appears that of the 15 Arbitrators, 4 are recused, 1 is inactive, and now that Casliber has formally abstained this leaves a total of 9 active Arbitrators. (I suppose that this includes the assumption that Elen is recused... I don't see that she's officially done so as yet. The summary in italics in the motion does tally 4 recusals.)

A majority of the 9 active Arbitrators is 5, therefore it appears that the current Motion on Elen of the Roads has passed per AC procedures. --Noren (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

There is still a dispute as to what standard should be used-- 2/3 of the entire Committee or a majority of active non-recused arbs. Until that ambiguity is resolved, no action will be taken on the motion. Lord Roem (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The rules are clear as to the threshold for a motion to pass. I can understand that it could be argued that some or all of the motion cannot be implemented due to the 2/3 rule, so I can understand why no implementation action would be taken yet. I do think that my statement that the motion itself has passed is correct, however. --Noren (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand this distinction. Either it passes or it doesn't. There is still a debate as to that point. If the 2/3 threshold is the right one to use, that supersedes any majority rule, per WP:ARBPOL. Lord Roem (talk) 04:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Even if a simple majority is the applicable standard, an "abstain" vote is not a recusal and does not reduce the number of active administrators. An abstention, whether explicit or silent is, for all intents and purposes, a "No" vote.Fladrif (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's not been how things have previously been interpreted: an abstention has reduced the number of voting, while simply not voting has not. Several arbs have historically used this as sort of a soft "pocket veto" by neither supporting, opposing, nor abstaining. Jclemens (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Jclemens. Being silent does not imply a recuse or abstention. For motions, which require >50%, it is clear that "abstain" IS equivalent to recuse for the purposes of identifying the number of arbitrators available to vote on a motion. Please see this, adopted April 2011. Under that, abstain, recuse, and inactive all have the same effect.

As for whether to use the 2/3rds rule of the >50% rule, there will be no agreement on that. The 2/3rds policy as written is incredibly vague. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Conduct_of_arbitrators for the rule. Note that it does not define "suspension" and as such there is no metric to decide if the motion constitutes an attempt to suspend Elen or not. Since that can not be defined, we can not define whether the motion is valid at >50%. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• The clerks have been asked to refrain from any action in relation to this motion until the issue of the threshold for approval has been properly sorted out. As well, motions are not enacted until 24 hours after they meet whatever threshold that will be; Casliber's vote was less than 24 hours ago, and he has been asked to review it because it is clearly not his intention to support the motion (either directly or indirectly), having offered an alternative further down in the page. Even arbitrators have a hard time keeping track of the effect of abstentions, which is why I previously pushed to remove that option from our voting template. I think we did manage to update this somewhere along the line, but I don't have time to find the link. Risker (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• This is puzzling. You state that the clerks have been asked to "refrain from any action in relation to this motion until the issue of the threshold for approval has been properly sorted out" (emphasis mine of course). Less than an hour later, a clerk closes and archives the motion as not passing [9]. So I presume this was sorted out? Where? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• The official ruling was published on-wiki here. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for providing that. But, it still begs the question...why was it closed? 4 non-recused arbitrators had yet to vote. We've seen changes in vote before as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Looking into this a bit more, the Committee's resolution implementing a majority requirement for resolutions was later overridden by the community here. I now agree that this didn't pass given this chronology and the committee's decision about whether this was covered under that newer Policy, though I would like to suggest that the written procedures be updated to reflect the changes the community has made to the Policy. Once it's established that the threshold to pass is 10, the clerking action to close makes sense. I also think that interchangeably calling these "Committee resolutions" or "Motions" is inherently confusing - why not choose one label and stick with it? --Noren (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• (In case my indentation is not clear, this in reply to Hammersoft's question). Once it was established that the majority required for this to pass was 2/3 of all arbitrators (i.e. 10), and that this was mathematically impossible to attain, the motion was closed as 'not passing'. This is standard practice for clerks; additionally, there had been coordination on the clerks-l list and I was therefore available to action the archiving of the two motions shortly after receiving clear instructions to do so from the Arbitration Committee. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, but can you clarify for me why it was mathematically impossible? I was going off of 15 arbs, -4 recused, -1 inactive = 10. If all 10 available agreed, it would be 2/3rds? I'm missing something. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed, 10 out of the 15 arbs needed to support. Of those ten, five had supported, one abstained, and one opposed, leaving three votes (Kirill Lokshin, Risker and Roger Davies). Even if these three had voted to support the motion, that would have only made eight, thus mathematically impossible to achieve. In other words, once SilkTork and Casliber did not support, the figure of ten was unobtainable, and therefore the motion could not pass. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible that arbiters could update the tally in the automatic section edit summary link when they update the section header for the tally? This would make it easier to get to the tally from your watchlist. Ryan Vesey 03:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Some do, some don't, some forget. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If we change that line to "=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/1> ===", the automatic edit summary would not include the tally, and then we can add an {{anchor|Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}} for that. To disambiguate between different cases, we can add the case name to the beginning of the section header ("XXX: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter"), perhaps directly in {{subst:arbreq}} by requiring the case name parameter. This way the automatic links will always work. T. Canens (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I really like that. It seems like it requires less work from the arbitrators and it is even more clear. Ryan Vesey 04:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I like that idea too, particularly including the name of the case so when there are multiple requests it's clear which is being commented upon. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ryan, I already do this, but I think I'm the only one who does. AGK [•] 15:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The clerks are kicking around a few ideas to cut down on the number of premature request and to make the act of filing a case request simpler. One of the many ideas involves a java script system to file cases, similar to what the WP:DRN uses. If any community members have ideas on this front we would like to hear them. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Eeeeeew. Yuuuuk. Bureaucracy! Stupid forms. Treats editors like little child. (Okay, many editors act like little children, but that doesn't mean you should aggravate the grown-ups). Like a bad insurance company phone menu: Press "1" if you've already discussed with user on their talk page .... It ain't that hard to file a case now. You subst the template and fill in the blanks. If you wanna improve things aggressively edit the wall o' text at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration NE Ent 00:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• I support the establishment of a javascript-oriented DRN-like case-filing system. This way would be better, I guess. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• What would really help would be to start sub-pages for requests. I have spent significant amounts of time trying to find diffs from requests, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Rich Farmbrough, 05:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC).
  

I am involved in a proposed accepted ArbCom case, and wish to ask one of the named parties in that case to refactor a comment they made about me outside arbitration. Am I allowed to post to their talk page, or is there somewhere else I should post the request? Thundersnow 19:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You can always ask the editor directly on their talkpage. If the comment is on one of the case pages, you could use the corresponding talkpage, should it be a matter you think should be brought to a broader attention. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Russavia is, I understand, under a humour-block based on his arb. case. This is not however noted on the Enforcement section.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Enforcement

Rich Farmbrough, 05:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC).

He is blocked under Eastern Europe based AE sanctions --Guerillero | My Talk 06:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Also not seeing it at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions. Rich Farmbrough, 20:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC).

It's logged under WP:ARBEE, like all discretionary sanction actions in this area, because the discretionary sanctions was enacted as an amendment to that case. The logs under the other cases are for enforcement actions of the particular remedies in the respective case. T. Canens (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence#Evidence presented by SarekOfVulcan, I mention "The history of WP:AT", but the section header and the link make it clear that I meant "WT:AT" in the submission. Very minor typo, but if someone could fix it, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. (I think I've done what you wanted done; let me know if I got it wrong.) Normally it wouldn't be worth fixing a typo on a year-old case, of course, but I assume there is good reason to do it in this instance, and making the change doesn't affect the substance of anything that was said or done in the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if there was a good reason to do it, but I assure you there was no bad reason to do it. I was just referring back to that case to see if it was relevant to Apteva's request, noticed that I was referring to the wrong page, and decided not to confuse matters by editing through protection myself.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, my gosh. You just got me to edit through protection? Aaaaargh. :) *reports self* Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

When an evidence phase is listed as closing on January 24, does it close at midnight UTC, midnight EST, midnight PST, or whenever it's gotten around to? I'm asking so I know how late to watch for last-minute evidence I may want to respond to. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

23:59 (UTC), so in about three hours. Doncram can contact us for an extension after that if he would like to. NW (Talk) 21:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I was advised to ask a clerk to address a possible BLP issue here. The issue is calling the actions of a subject "morally corrupt". Please handle it (or not) as you see fit.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Could someone update the counts at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Proposed decision? I think a passing remedy may have just flipped when another one passed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• This is done. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks, nice to know I can still count. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Could a clerk review Demiurge's latest statement at the Kevin RFAR, and remove the unsupported casual slander than Kevin is somehow involved in trying to out Gwickwire? I hope we aren't at a point where that kind of unfounded accusation remains just because it can't be proved false. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I have redacted the statement. Thanks Floquem. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

clerks-l list. NE Ent 10:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Noted, accepted, and acted on --Guerillero | My Talk 13:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Temporary_desysop_of_Kevin could a clerk either change "Motion 1" to "Motion (1)" or change "Motion (2)" to "Motion 2"? (Yes, it's not important, but you can humor me, can't ya?) NE Ent 21:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Done --Guerillero | My Talk 22:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thx. NE Ent 01:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A number of articles previously deleted as copyright violations were temporarily restored for a recently-closed arbitration case (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence#Deleted_evidence). These pages were supposed to be re-deleted upon the conclusion of the case, but they seem to have been forgotten and the arbitrator who restored them has since resigned their adminship. Can some official functionary re-delete them? Hut 8.5 21:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

WTT deleted them --Guerillero | My Talk 22:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

sorry, yes I did. Should have left a note. Worm^TT(talk) 22:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the above (closed) section is now used for general threaded discussion about the outcome of the request. I'm pretty sure that this isn't the place for it, but as the admin whose closure is being discussed, I probably shouldn't be the one to move the discussion to the appropriate talk page. Could one of the clerks please determine whether that discussion should be moved? Thanks,  Sandstein  10:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done by not a clerk per not bureaucracy NE Ent 11:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

With these two edits Jmanooch (talk · contribs) has added an initial statement to the main case page of a case that is currently awaiting the proposed decision being posted. This is clearly in violation of the instructions not to edit the page, but I'm not sure whether my moving it to the talk would also be against that. Please would a clerk do the honours (or clarify that anyone can). Thryduulf (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I have taken care of the situation. Thanks for the note, Thryduulf. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. That remedy's wording was modified by a motion, but the new wording wasn't added. If that is an oversight, could a clerk please fix it? Thanks,  Sandstein  20:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Following the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#note, (permanent link) I think it would be helpful for there to be a template added to the top of closed arbitration case pages and talk pages. The template would simply state that the case is now closed and comments left there may not receive a quick response and may not be seen by arbitrators. It would direct users to the best location to ask questions/make simple requests (WT:ARBCOM or WT:A/R), seek clarification (WP:ARCA), and seek enforcement (WP:AE).

This could be done as a separate template or combined with the {{casenav}} template, maybe with a "|closed=yes" parameter that added to/modified the template.

The initial addition could certainly be done by a bot (add to every page that transcludes {{casenav}} that isn't an open case). The addition of the template/parameter wouldn't seem like much extra as part of the normal closing duties, and again could very easily be a bot task. Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I think adding a note to Template:Casenav/closed would be the best option, however the problem is that Casenav is substed when a case is closed (and isn't on the pages of some old cases at all). So whilst we would be able to do it from now on, getting the message onto the pages of old cases might be a bit more hit and miss - ideas? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Posting on an old case page isn't a logical thing to do; if it's important the editor will repost on more visible forum. NE Ent 01:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Except recent experience shows that people do post on old case pages expecting that to be sufficiently prominent, get annoyed that it isn't and don't know where an appropriate higher profile venue is.

As for Callanecc's question, are there any pages in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ and Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration/Case/ hierarchies that are not part of arbitration cases? It not would be trivial to exclude the currently open cases from a trawl though those. For those pages that don't have a casenav (or where it is not possible for a bot to detect whether it is present) then maybe a standalone template could be added/substed to those with the more elegent solution used going forwards. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

As the editor who posted the original note referred to above, I would like to thank Thryduulf for his attention to this item and for his actions on this, above. I think I would agree that a note in the template might be helpful, in order to direct editors to post any such notes at a more prominent or more well-used page. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to create a cascading editnotice for all articles beginning in "WP:Requests for arbitration/" or "WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/"? NW (Talk) 14:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Technically that would be a group notice, and we'd need four (the two page hierarchies and the two talk hierarchies) for which WP:EDITNOTICE recommends transcluding a template. The one issue is that I don't think it is possible to distinguish the open cases from the closed cases with edit notices (and we really don't want to mislead people into thinking an open case is closed). WP:EDITNOTICE suggests that protected pages can be distinguished from non-protected ones, but some open case pages are protected before a case is closed (e.g. evidence pages closed before the proposed decision is made) and I'm not sure whether this requires the interaction of something on the individual page or not. I'll see if I can find someone with more technical understanding to comment as I'm out of my depth here! Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not productive to full protect pages as it prevents editors from maintanence activities, such as category work or adding {{anchor}}s to reference specific parts of pages for current discussions. NE Ent 21:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing to. My point was that as some pages of open cases are protected, that cannot be used to determine whether a case is closed or not. Anyway, I left a note at WT:EDITNOTICE, but it's garnered no attention at all yet. Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You would need to timely update the list of open cases. The template would show a default for closed cases, something else for open cases. The syntax could be:

{{#switch: {{#titleparts: {{FULLPAGENAME}} | 1 | 4 }} | Open case 1 | Open case 2 | Open case 3 | ... = Template if case is open | #default = Template if case is closed }} .

This would just make the procedures a little bit more complicated than they already are. Cenarium (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

As an example of template, see User:Cenarium/Sandbox/Case is. I added the distinction "suspended". Then this template could be called by something such as : {{#switch: {{User:Cenarium/Sandbox/Case is}}| open = Text if open | suspended = Text if suspended | closed = Text if closed }} . You could call it in the arb navbox and in the editnotice, and others if needed. Cenarium (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not adding related changes to the navbox as well, as had been suggested in the past ? This can be done only on open cases. Cenarium (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, and for the ping on my talk page. I don't pretend to understand the code, but it seems to enable what is being suggested above for the edit notices? Thryduulf (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, provided you update the template with the list of open cases and suspended cases when a case status changes. I could create Template:Arbitration case status and make the navigation and editnotice templates check it, if you agree (I must be "authorized" to change those). Cenarium (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Arbitrators have been invited to comment here. My comment is this: I think we've gotten rather absurd in the complexity of the templates related to arbitration, and that they need to be simplified, not made more complex. No template. No coding. Simple edit notice if someone really feels it is necessary; personally, I'm not entirely convinced it is necessary, but a case could be made. We need to stop making things as complex as possible, and instead I would rather see a reworking of almost all of the related templates so that even a newbie without technical education can file a case, make comments, submit evidence, or start an arbitration enforcement request. Right now, I am not entirely certain that I could do it. Risker (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Template:Casenav is quite complex, and I think the way it has been implemented is actually suboptimal. This proposed case status template is exceedingly simple and would add no complexity, in fact it would allow to decrease the complexity of casenav. Indeed, it would automatically detect if the case is open or suspended. Adding a "recently closed" status would also simplify quite a bit. Cenarium (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Oh, I know Casenav is very complex. I also know that any template that involves the term "#switch" is a gigantic "don't touch this unless you've been writing template code for years" warning to anyone who...well, hasn't been dealing with template code for a long time. As I say, I'm already certain I would fail miserably as an arbitration clerk. Risker (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Template:ArbComOpenTasks is complicated as well. By simply listing cases by status at Template:Arbitration case list, it will no longer require updating (provided an option closure date is added in Casenav data). However, I imagine having to subst those casenav templates at case closures is a hassle for clerks, moreover this method is a source of errors, can't properly handle cases being reopened or reviewed and gets broken in old revisions (example). With this new template, we can do much better. Instead of updating the /data subpage, a subtemplate would be created for each case with all the case data (we can also simplify shortcut links this way). The new casenav template would check the case status and fill in the correct data. This would significantly decrease the workload of clerks. Cenarium (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Tenmei, who also edited for a period under the name Ansei (talk · contribs), has recently changed his name as such to avoid the drama associated with it to Enkyo2 (talk · contribs). He was subject to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands under which he is under an indefinite topic ban. Shouldn't the two case pages be edited to reflect this change in user name?—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't see a need as Ansei is clearly linked (via redirect) to new user name. NE Ent 01:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Tenmei is no longer editing as "Ansei" though. He has changed his user name to "Enkyo2" in what seems to be a means to step away from what happened as "Tenmei". Should his change from "Tenmei" to "Enkyo2" be reflected in the cases, particularly WP:SENKAKU where he has a topic ban.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

For clarity, I've noted on both pages that Tenmei has been renamed Enkyo2, and a note about Ansei. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

my request as I am withdrawing the request. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing positive can come from allowing this conversation to persist. If an arb case needs to be filed it is that away. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 20:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was told by an admin that the correct procedure for petitioning to reopen a suspended arbitration case is to contact a clerk. Therefore, I am asking that the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Ebionites 2 case be reopened. Ignocrates (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Case requests cannot be reopened, because they never reached the case status. If you are interested in pursuting arbitration, you can make a new request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 20:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks for responding so promptly. There was a considerable amount of evidence presented in that case before it was suspended. Is there any way it can be retrieved? Ignocrates (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Okay. The link you posted above is not showing the Ebionites request so that I can give you an accurate response about that question. Can you please provide a direct link to the case page (or similar)? Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 20:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Yow! That is the only link I had in my talk page archives. I will ask the help desk about this and get back to you soon. Ignocrates (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC) With the assistance of the help desk, I was able to retrieve the archived page here. Why can't this archived file just be pasted into the current /Requests to reopen the case? Ignocrates (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Okay, I see now. The case was accepted but then suspended before it was opened. I think that, given that more than two years have elapsed, you'd need to assess if a case is still needed. If so, you can take the previous case request as evidence, and make a new request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. I'll be willing to help you, if you wish. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21 01:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Yes, I would very much appreciate your assistance in this matter. Even though the evidence is two years old, most of it is still relevant. As I have already explained to Brad on his talk page, I have been harassed relentlessly, both on and off-wiki, for the better part of the last two years by one of the parties of this dispute who just can't let it go. Thank you so much. Ignocrates (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC) There is also the extremely important matter of your own status as basically a single-purpose account about Ebionites, your amazingly thorough knowledge of the beliefs of Shemayah Phillips, amazing considering his website is just about the only source which says anything about him at all, your regular amazingly irrational stupid arrogance, some outright dishonesty, such as your having transformed a total of two e-mails when you announced your retirment as Ovadyah as being "harassed relentlessly," and obvious POV pushing for a non-notable group and its founder which does not now, and never has, even the most minimal standards of independent notice, all of which raise very serious questions whether this . It is in fact Ignocrates' refusal to abide by even the most basic standards of conduct which is I believe sufficient basis to question whether you have the basic competence to edit. Given the recent acknowledgments on Iggy's part of not knowing matters like content and MOS guidelines, I realize it might be asking too much to believe he will adhere to arbitration guidelines either, but I do expect that I will receive sufficient notification of the case being opened. Given the fact that I am spending a lot of my "computer time" these times off wiki, developing lists of articles in reference sources like at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic content, it may be a couple of days before I notice it. John Carter (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Did it ever occur to you that my "amazingly thorough knowledge" of this subject might be due to spending many hours studying diligently in an effort to get this content right? I have no idea what Shemayah Phillips is doing these days. I think the last time I glanced at his website was 7 years ago. However, you seem to know a great deal more about him, and neo-Ebionites in general, than I do. I assume that is why you contributed a new section on neo-Ebionites to the Ebionites article. As for your statements about me like "amazingly irrational stupid arrogance" and "outright dishonesty", they are all going to come back to you in arbitration. Ignocrates (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Given your history, no, it never did. Your amusing disregard for the Anchor Bible Dictionary at Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites is a very strong indicator, when taken with the rest of your actions, including your amazing degree of knowledge that things are "false" about a group which has rarely if ever even appeared in independent reliable sources, as per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Ebionite Jewish Community (3rd nomination). And I believe you have cited him as a source on the Talk:Ebionites page much more than anyone else. Arbitration will, like it always does, review the entire relevant history, and your high and regular regard for the Ebionite Jewish Community and James Tabor, and other instances of your conduct regarding the only topic you seem to edit, will be noticed by all. I'll even forward to them the entirety of our e-mail history, including your own amusing little tirade and the earlier comments exchanged during the request for input yuou filed at WT:X. Honestly, the above statement by you just indicates, to me, just how out of touch with reality you are, and might serve as perhaps another indicator of the possibility of diminished capacity on your part. I look forward to presenting to the arbitrators all of the evidence regarding your conduct. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Oh well guys I think that, eventually, you can discuss this matter at arbitration, if accepted. I don't think this is the correct venue for this, don't you? :) — ΛΧΣ21 04:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Getting some of the evidence ready, that's all. I think Iggy already asked this of NYB on his talk page, and I seem to remember he accepted the case. However, if I might make one request. I and a lot of other people are going to be spending a lot of time away from computers in the next few days, for the US Independence Day, and if possible I might request that the deadline for admissions maybe be extended a little, to take that into account? John Carter (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Well, after you request a case to be opened, it usually needs some couple of days to see what the arbitrators' opinions are on the matter. If the request is accepted, then a case is opened. I am sure that, if the case is opened, the deadlines of submission of evidence could be extented if it's needed. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21 01:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Any word on the possible reopening, he said, badgering the poor clerks who really didn't do anything themselves to get involved in this mess? :) John Carter (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC) At this point, I think we are best writing off the earlier motion as too old to bind the current Committee into taking action. I would just file another case request and cite the earlier request plus developments that have occurred since in the filing. NW (Talk) 15:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Let's get this show on the road then and file a new case. I'm adding fraud to my list of complaints, along with defamation of character and stalking. Ignocrates (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Don't worry, we will. In addition to your own long-lasting stalking at Jayjg and other pages, which is completely documentable, znd in addition to your own irrational accusations of "defamation," which I find in none of the guidelines regarding people with obvious transparent POV problems, is the at this time I think apparently unfounded accusation of "fraud". I would be very interested if any of these allegations of yours remotely relate to policies and guidelines, such as POV, WEIGHT, STALKING, HARASS, and others. You were the one who wanted to file a case some weeks ago. If you have developed reservations about your own conduct which now makes you hesitate to do so, I believe that is something that I will add to my own list of fairly obvious violations of policies and guidelines. You were the one who started this thread, and it seems very odd to me now that now you are apparently backing down from what we might have to consider a threat which you may have had no interest in following up on? Making what might be taken as false threats is itself a very serious behavioral problem. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC) I only backed off because you told Keilana you were filing the case. So, be my guest. I will start out playing defense to clear my good name as an editor of all these fabricated charges. Ignocrates (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to draw attention to Template:ArbComOpenTasks/ClarificationAmendment. The only outstanding question listed in the template has been archived for over 4 days leading to a disconnect between the status on the Open Tasks template and the page itself. I would also like to draw attention to the continued listing of the Sexology case as "Recently Closed" when it has been over 60 days since the case was concluded. Hasteur (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Taken care of, thanks for the message. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

As suggested at #Closed case template, those two templates can be considerably simplified and clerks workload decreased using Template:Arbitration cases by status (ACBS) and by putting the case data in a case subpage (ie WP:Arb/Req/Case/CaseName/Data) instead of at casenav/data. Clerks would only have to update ACBS and add the date of closure, ACOT and Casenav would automatically update, in particular it would no longer require time-consuming and error-prone substing of casenav. It would allow to handle cases being reopened/reviewed and make old revisions work. Cenarium (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I've read through the "arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter" section several times, and AFAICT Newyorkbrad is the only person who's commented but hasn't voted yet; could someone please update the count from <5/3/0/2> to <5/3/0/1>? (I think the error comes from AGK upping the "accept" count without realizing that one of the slots in the "other" count was from his previous comment.) — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 17:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have updated the tally now. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please fix the tally at Bwilkins, at <0/8/0/2> it's still wrong - it should be <0/8/0/1>, assuming that Risker's striking of her acceptance makes her "Other" rather than "Decline". Only 9 arbs have commented, not 10. Not terribly serious, it's just bugging me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Updated the tally. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Attn clerk Callennec: If there are 8 arbitrators hearing the case and 5 have voted in support of the motion, hasn't the motion passed? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There are 10 arbs hearing the case. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, G, but when I looked at all the vote tallies, I never saw more than a total of 9 votes; then SilkTork recused himself. Who am I missing? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I see it now—Kirill, who hadn't voted on anything previously, voted to oppose the proposed motion. And NewYorkBrad has not voted yet but is leaning support, not that it matters because 5 is a majority. If Brad votes support, it passes 6–3. Oh, well. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: NW updated the page to show 9 arbs are hearing the case. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just been reading up on the role of clerks at Wikipedia and I had a few questions. Is it typical for one clerk to be assigned to each request or case who sees it through the process? Or do different clerks have "specialties" (like opening, communicating with participants, enforcing, etc.) and work is divided that way? Or do clerks come on and go off cases when they are needed? Thanks for satisfying my curiosity. Newjerseyliz (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey. All clerks have the same responsibilities or duties within their remit when it comes to general Arbitration proceedings. However, usually one or two clerks are assigned to a case, and this clerk is the one entitled to do anything related to that case, process-wise. This does not mean that any other clerk can do that; it is just to establish a fixed point for parties to have if they have answers, questions or any other inconvenient related to the case. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I have a follow-up minor question. Is it usual practice for an active clerk to help one of the parties to a dispute prepare an arbitration case in secret? I'm asking because there seemed to be indirect evidence that was happening. Ignocrates (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Any clerk can feel free to help an specific user to prepare a case request as long as there are no conflicts of interest in the way. However, they must excercise extreme caution and discretion while doing so, and recuse from such a case if their involvement is substantial. After all, clerks are also editors, and as such can be part of conflicts or disputes like any other user. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I have a concern about the following statements which were recently made on Newjerseyliz: (1) "I have asked one of the ArbCom clerks to draft the request for arbitration against him.", and (2) "that is why the ArbCom clerk is preparing the statement to be made for a request." The "him" in these quotations is me. This sounds like a lot more than help in gathering diffs together which are publicly available and anyone can do. If the help extends to structuring arguments in a way the clerk knows from experience will be particularly influential on the Committee, I would call that dirty pool. What is your opinion? Ignocrates (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Clerks have no special knowledge as to what is influential or not. I'll spill all the secrets right now: just present evidence is a clear, concise, well-evidenced (e.g. diffs) manner. If an Arbitration request is filed, I am sure John will mentioned whom he received assistance from. Depending on the circumstance, we can and will ask the clerk to recuse if they do not do so of their own volition. I wouldn't worry too much about it. NW (Talk) 21:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a bit obvious that I am the clerk who has been helping John Carter with his Ebionites case request, and everything can be seen at my talk page; no secret or off-wiki discussions have taken place. However, we the clerks are not free pass tickets to get a case accepted because we hold no special influence on the Committee's decision. The fact that we are more versed in Arbitration matters can idealy only serve as a guide to understand which are the steps to make a good, concise case request. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging your involvement. I am requesting the help of another clerk to prepare a counter-case against John Carter. How do I do that? Sauce that's good for the goose is good for the gander. Ignocrates (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually think it's better until one of yuo does request a case. There is no need to request two cases or to file two requests. Everything will be evaluated in a single case, if accepted. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. The scope of my case will be entirely different with a larger list of involved parties. I'm going to demonstrate that John Carter has been engaging in a systemic pattern of misconduct across the category of religious articles, broadly construed, over a long period of time. One of the disadvantages of those 100,000-plus edits is that a lot of people are pissed-off by how they were treated. Now all those chickens are coming home to roost. Ignocrates (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, thats a good point, although I don't know if the Committee would accept both cases, or any of them. It remains to be seen. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The chances of the committee accepting a case against John Carter instigated by Ignocrates, and a case against Ignocrates instigated by John Carter, as two separate cases, simultaneously, are approximately zero. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The point of filing two cases at the same time was to give the Committee maximum flexibility. They may choose to (1) reject either or both cases, (2) combine them, or (3) address them sequentially. I realize there is a quantum-tunneling probability they will accept both cases simultaneously. Since Hahc21 is currently serving in an agency capacity for John Carter, I will end this thread and discuss the specifics of the case on his page. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe that I didn't check back and read this discussion when it occurred. It's ironic because I asked the original question as a fairly new active Editor (and I was Nwjerseyliz) seeking information and now, 6 weeks later, I'm Liz and I've actually participated in the case involving Ignocrates and John Carter that is spoken about (above).
So, curiosity, again, leads me back to the Clerks noticeboard and I see a question I posted in August. Thanks to ΛΧΣ for posting a reply and answering my question. It's much appreciated, even in October! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Could somebody please add a hatnote to WP:AC/DS along the lines of {{Hatnote|These procedures are currently [[/2013 review|under review]]. Users are invited to participate in [[WT:AC/DSR|discussing]] the proposed changes.}}? Thanks. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I reworked your notice and placed it --Guerillero | My Talk 14:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks! — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I corrected an error and the undid the correction so my edit is not visible. Please evaluate the my first edit and restore it if agreed. Minor and easier to edit and diff than explain.proposed change --DHeyward (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I think in this case it would be better to ask User:Newyorkbrad to clarify, since it could be read in different ways. I've sent an email to the mailing list. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

DHeyward, please don't do that in the future. It makes the page history difficult to read. It would have been just as easy to tell NYB "I think you meant 'national origin, religion' instead of 'national religion'". NW (Talk) 18:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Difficult ... to ... read? Is that a joke? Perhaps hanging around for seven years has tainted my objectivity, but what is hard about reading a page history? NE Ent 01:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I mean, it's fine when it's just one editor suggesting changes that way but if you start to get a number of people doing that it gets hard to keep track of who suggested what when. Far easier to just list changes on the talk page. NW (Talk) 02:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense; in addition, although obviously there's no concern with DHeyward, if it became common sooner or later someone would try to sneaky vandalize the page by doing + / - edits of the same edit count that didn't actually revert the first edit. NE Ent 09:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I was keeping track on the case pages in the early stages but I simply haven't had time to do so in the last week or so and I now find myself hopelessly behind. Probably best to mark me as inactive on this case (and this case alone) as I simply haven't got time now to do all the catching up and to do it justice. Thanks in advance,  Roger Davies ^talk 10:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Rschen7754 17:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 18:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Point 15 of the decision says that enforcement actions should be logged at Sexology, but the (boilerplate?) Log section at the bottom calls for logging to be done there instead. Apparently the former takes precedence, but perhaps it would be clearer if the latter were to be amended accordingly.—Odysseus1479 09:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-clerk comment) As I understand it, any sanctions imposed as a result of remedies passed in Manning are still to be logged there. (For instance, an AE block of someone violating a topic ban.) The part about logging at Sexology is only for sanctions imposed pursuant to the transgender-issues discretionary sanctions, as they were originally authorized in remedy 4.1 of Sexology. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've clarified it on the page. Sanctions should be recorded on Manning case if they are enforcing a remedy (such as one of the topic bans) authorized in that case. However discretionary sanctions were authorized in Sexology case so need to be recorded there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

If I understand correctly (only because I am trying to help clarify for dissenting Arbs) this vote makes the net four procedure no longer valid. Am I correct in this evaluation, or have I missed the fact that the net was valid at one point therefore the procedure is still good to go. Hasteur (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes that's correct, although only one more accept vote is needed for their to be a majority to accept. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Annother ping. It appears that we have Absolute Majority + (24 hours expired since this majority) + (48 hours since request was filed) criteria being fufilled. Any ETA on the case being opened, or is there a behind the scenes discussion by the committee to dispose of the case expediently? Hasteur (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It's more of a behind the scenes discussion regarding who is going to clerk both of the cases open now, and waiting on the Committee to give us the go-ahead to open them. --Rschen7754 21:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, but I think we have it all figured out, and Kafziel should be opening within about 12 hours or so. --Rschen7754 01:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please add the following to the pending case request about Dan Murphy--thanks.

Since arbcom is the last step of Wikipedia dispute resolution, I don't agree with 28bytes' view that off-wiki harassment that chills a Wikipedia editor's participation in Wikipedia (as surely happened to 28bytes) is outside Arbcom purview. It is clearly within the scope of on-wiki DR. If someone else got outed off-wiki and wanted to pursue on-wiki remedies, they certainly should be entitled to do so. I could go along with Arbcom dropping the case at hand because 28bytes doesn't want to pursue it, and I could see declining it because there haven't been prior attempts at resolution. Normally something like this would first be brought up at AN or ANI, I would think, especially since the relevant private info is already out of the bag. But that's all specific to this particular incident. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

And you are...? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Per this change which appears to have been conducted behind the scenes, I would like a summary of who requested the change, if the primary clerk for the case (Callanecc) had signed off on this change, if the drafting Arbiter (Risker) approved of this change, what debate there was about said change, why (as the editor primarily bringing the action) that I was not informed of this change, and how I may go about appealing this behind the scenes change. I ask because I've now had to defend myself against a competing set of workshop proposals that reads straight from the viewpoint of Kafziel that would have been ruled outside the workshop deadline as I am assuming good faith at the extension. Hasteur (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This was at the request of Risker, because she has proposals that she wants to make before moving forward with the proposed decision. --Rschen7754 17:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see [10] and related ANI thread. 12:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to draw the clerks attention to the implementaion notes on this case. The last note update was over 48 hours ago, and several Arbitrators have voted causing some of the propositions to move into passing, others needing updates on the margins still necessary for passing, and iff supports that need to be indicated. Hasteur (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've spoken with Seraphimblade and we concur about extending the closing of the evidence phase until 23:59 (UTC) on 25th January and to push back the other target dates accordingly. I've mentioned this on the case pages here. Could one of the clerks please action this? Thanks v.m.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee clerks are currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors willing to serve as clerks. The responsibilities of clerks include opening and closing arbitration cases and motions; notifying parties of cases, decisions, and other committee actions; maintaining the requests for Arbitration pages; preserving order and proper formatting on case pages; and other administrative and related tasks they may be requested to handle by the arbitrators. Clerks are the unsung heroes of the arbitration process, keeping track of details to ensure that requests are handled in a timely and efficient manner. Clerks get front-line seats to the political and ethnic warfare that scorches Wikipedia periodically, and, since they aren't arbitrators themselves, are rarely threatened with violence by the participants.

Past clerks have gone on to be (or already were) successful lawyers, naval officers, and Presidents of Wikimedia Chapters. The salary and retirement packages for Clerks rival that of Arbitrators, to boot. Best of all, you get a cool fez!

Please email clerks-llists.wikimedia.org if you are interested in becoming a clerk, and a clerk will reply with an acknowledgement of your message and any questions we want to put to you.

For the Arbitration Committee clerks, Rschen7754 04:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

67.60.15.218 (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You've made no request.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I've marked myself inactive on new cases, with effect from 16 Feb. Effectively that's everything apart from the Gun control case and the discretionary sanctions review.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone having issues with the mailing list? I sent out an email to the list a few minutes ago, but I didn't get a copy of it sent to me like I normally do.--Rockfang (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I received it. The default setting is to not have it emailed to you. You can also always check the mailing list archives to see if it sent. --Rschen7754 19:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. My setting must have been reset or something because I've gotten the emails in the past.--Rockfang (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I also wonder whether something changed on mailman... I had the same issues on two other mailing lists (not this one). Trijnstel_talk 22:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Trijnstel:, @Rockfang: I talked to Jalexander and he suggested Bugzilla. --Rschen7754 19:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. He pointed me to someone else and that person informed others about it. I fear it has something to do with my email provider, which means a lot of others miss emails now too. Let's hope it gets fixed soon. Thanks for your help though. :) Trijnstel_talk 17:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not appear to be getting any emails from the list. I checked my list settings on the archive site and they are appear to be fine. Any suggestions?--Rockfang (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I just changed my email address I used for the list and sent out a test message. The test message got to the list and is viewable in the archives, but I still didn't get a copy of it in my inbox. Prior to switching email addresses, there was a message on the archive site stating I had a bounce score of 2.0 out of a max of 5.0. Because I'm still not getting emails from the list with two different email services I believe there is a partial problem with the mailing list. Who can I talk to about this that might be able to investigate?--Rockfang (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I've added a comment to the 2nd bug report listed off to the right here. Hopefully it helps. Thank you Rschen7754.--Rockfang (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

On the case page WP:ARBATC, a non-admin editor, NE Ent ([11]), and an editor who is the subject of log entries, Neotarf ([12]), are removing log entries from the arbitration case page, including the log entries of warnings against which the Committee previously declined an appeal. This appears to me to be a disruption of the arbitration process. I am asking arbitration clerks to determine which if any version of the page should be restored. There is also an ongoing WP:ANI discussion about related matters. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the version of the page last edited by me before the changes were made as a clerk action. This change would need to have been with the approval of the logging admin (especially since it was the result of an AE request) or with the Committee. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for attending to this matter.  Sandstein  12:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I could surely use assistance with preparing a Statement for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Article titles and capitalisation. The history of the dispute it complicated, and I'm always accused by admin Sandstein (the opposing party) of being too wordy in the dispute (at AE once he even directly censored the evidence I was presenting by just deleting it as supposedly too lengthy). I do not spend any time with ArbCom and do not know what they are going to want to see and how they're going to want it presented. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 11:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the history is. Notices as warnings are going to be deprecated very shortly anyway. I've made a suggestion that will resolve this swiftly on the WP:ARCA page. Please respond to it.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. I understand that you've been working on changes that will prevent recurrence of this issue, but I've been waiting over a year for these unjustly reputation-harming false accusations about me to be deleted. It's important that an editing log by a WP authority like ArbCom show, somewhere, that the accusation has been formally voided. "Deprecating" them generally won't resolve this particular issue of a particular admin attacking (whether he meant to or not) four particular good-faith editors without cause, and ArbCom refusing to fix it for over a year. This is a trivially simple, cut-and-dry basic ethical matter that doesn't even require finding any wrongdoing on Sandstein's part, only a post-hoc decision that Sandstein's accusation/threat/warning log entries should be converted to neutral notification log entries, or deleted, because their result has been problematic and unhelpful. The end. Should have happened the day these accusations were posted. If one thinks about it, one quickly realizes that the unevidenced accusations actually directly violate the very provisions Sandstein claimed to be enforcing. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 17:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Notices as warnings are going to be deprecated very shortly anyway."

Roger Davies, I went to WP:ARCA to look for an explanation for this statement and couldn't find anything regarding warnings, in general. Can you point me to where this conversation is happening? Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Liz. The proposal is to "downgrade" to alerts/notices and then expire them with a sunset provision. {See here and here, as well as discussion here and formulative discussions here, here and here.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

On the clerks mailing list, I proposed a couple minor tweaks to process rules which gained some support. I'm reporting here, and making the changes. Any further discussion is, of course, welcome.

In Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures#How_to_action, make the following edit to step 1:

Deleting Removing request for arbitration: declined by the Committee

This doesn't change the action, but the word 'delete" may connote removal of something that didn't belong, while "removing" doesn't carry that connotation. In the same section, make the following edit to step 3:

Use that diff to add an entry for the declined request to the top of the index of declined requests. Add a date.

This isn't a change in process, just a clarification that the list is reverse chronological. Adding the date will help readers find a particular item, and reinforce the nature of the order.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This should have been stricken when This was passed.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC).

If your links were intended to go to specific sections, they don't seem to be doing that. At least not for me.--Rockfang (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

How strange. I'm sure that syntax used to work. Anyway I have fixed the links by using urls.

Many thanks, in advance. Rich Farmbrough, 13:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC).

• The &section doesn't work. When you want to link to multiple sections with the same name, it is linked via adding an underscore plus a number at the end (so the correct links to the sections you wanted would have been Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Modified_by_motion to be struck due to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Modified_by_motion_3 passing). I have struck the first one (note that the FoF section was correctly struck before). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 18:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC).

I'm being harassed by an IP user again (third time now). I have tried using a template to request an amendment to the Gun control case, but I think I didn't fill it in properly. Can you help? This last try to post this request is here: [13] Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Everything looks right to me now. NW (Talk) 12:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry I couldn't step in, but I am still in a "short" conference call that just...will...not...die...--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I am semi-retiring. Nothing bad has happened, I just have lost interest in editing in general. Feel free to remove me from any pages or templates that show me as a clerk.--Rockfang (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, AGK [•] 14:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Best wishes, Rockfang! → Call me Hahc21 15:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Could one of the clerks post on the request page the number of Abritrators needed for the case to be accepted? Thanks, BMK (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Here's the page you're looking for. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. BMK (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I want to request clarification on this case - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Sue Rangell - but I'm unsure from the instructions at this page - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for clarification and amendment - whether I should simply post the request or send an email, since I was temporarily topic-banned recently and one of the instructions is, "Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee." Lightbreather (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I would like to request clarification on this case - Wikipedia:ARE#Scalhotrod - as well, but the same question. Do I just use the template at the clarification request page and post the completed form, or do I email it? Lightbreather (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to file a request for clarification, you can use this page. An email to the Committee does not need to be in any specific format, though it should contain a concise statement of your request/question. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

So I can post directly or email? The instructions on the page almost sound like if one is banned or blocked that they should use email, but since it sounds like that is not the case, I will probably just post a request directly (after completing it in my own sandbox). Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe my request is something you have the authority to answer as a clerk. If not, it's a simple question, so a concise statement would be easy enough to email. But, does using the official form/template give the request and answer more weight? The reason why making this request as "correctly" as possible is important to me, and could be important to y'all, too, is that the answer will help me to decide whether or not I will appeal my topic ban or request clarification on the Sue Rangell case.

I've read the "Result" subsection several times now, and my question is: Was my topic ban based on edit warring with the other editor who was banned, or was it based on something else, or more?

If you can clarify that, great. If not, does an email request to the arbitrators carry less weight than using the official form/template?

Thanks for your time.

--Lightbreather (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, you still have the three options listed at WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications, 'Appeals by sanctioned editors' to appeal your own topic ban. So far as I know you have no right of appeal about the outcome of WP:AE#Sue Rangell because you were not the 'sanctioned editor' in that case. It is evident you haven't yet contacted User:Callanecc who closed the request at WP:AE#Scalhotrod that led to your ban. Callanecc might be in a position to answer questions about the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks EdJohnston. Whether or not I will appeal my ban depends on what I was banned for. If it was only for edit warring, then I won't appeal at this time. But if it was for something other than edit warring or in addition to edit warring, then I will appeal.

As for Sue's case, I don't want to appeal that decision but to clarify the scope of the warning she received to focus on content, not on contributors.

And for both of these, is it OK to be asking these questions here, or is it important that I use the formal processes every step of the way? Lightbreather (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend that you not pursue clarification of WP:AE#Sue Rangell because your topic ban covers that now. You got a one-time exemption from Callanecc to file the AE request. You can ask to have your own ban clarified, but not someone else's. EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, thanks. I will talk with Callanecc. Lightbreather (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

My comment at RFAR was edited by @Callanecc: and when this was reverted by another editor the reverting clerk @Hahc21: stated the removal was at the request of the committee. I'd like to know if this refers to the committe en banc or an individual arb acting on behalf of the committee. I would also like to know the name of the requesting arb and the time and date they made the request. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't revert Callanecc. I made an edit which exposed the hidden file link without displaying the picture (i.e. the diff between [File and [:File. The intent of the quotation marks in the edit summary [14] was to indicate that I wasn't actually unhiding the picture; in hindsight it would have been better if I explicitly stated was I was doing. NE Ent 19:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Or done nothing at all,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

So that every editor who wanted to view Spartaz's contribution had to click on the edit button, use a "View Source" option on a browser, or peruse the history of the page? That's far more distracting than simply following a [:File link. NE Ent 13:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

So suggest that solution to the clerk next time?  Roger Davies ^talk 13:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Add a colon to the link so the image isn't displayed but the link remains for anyone who wants to understand the context to the comment. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Unlikely since WP:IAR is still a pillar. Do you actually consider the difference between <! --[File... and [File important? NE Ent 16:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't consider this particular edit, in and of itself, important (though seemingly you do). Sure, we do sometimes turn a blind eye to drive-by edits as they happen rarely but we must avoid a situation where people are routinely tweaking material posted by others on Arbitration pages.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I still want an answer to my question. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I asked the clerks to remove it. Per longstanding convention, posting images to make a point puts undue weight on the point made, is distracting, and is inappropriate use of the /Requests page.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

thank you Roger, the matter is now closed as far as I am concerned. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Glad that's been cleared up,  Roger Davies ^talk 11:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

... and links to that yukky ^{[dubious – discuss]} Media Viewer. NE Ent 13:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• NE Ent: as a clerk, we are generally given a decent amount of leeway to enforce the best action when directed. When Roger asked the clerks to remove it, Callanecc merely hid the image by commenting it out; he could have as easily removed it. Personally - my own opinion - I would consider exposing content that was "removed" via commenting out - as a revert. But again, that's just me. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 16:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Reverting NE Ent 16:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That, though, is an essay. Arbitration committee pages, per policy, are the committee's responsibility and are managed/supervised by the clerks applying the applicable procedures. These procedures aren't in place because we all love bureaucracy but because long experience shows that case participants like clear pointable-at ground rules and expect consistent application of them.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Remedy 2 of the "Waldorf Education Review" case was supeceded by motion in January 2013 but this does not appear to have been noted on the case page (or at least not as prominently as for remedy 1 of the original case). Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

On the main Case page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education I see the remedies: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Remedies_2 followed immediately by the amendments by motion: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Amendments_by_motion. While adjacent, I think your point is that there should be something in the remedy section itself indicating that an amendment motion supersedes the remedies.

On the Review page: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review

it is clear, as the remedy section itself: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Review#Article_probation_2

lists the original remedy, which is struck out and a note that it was superseded in the same section. While the clerk who handled this will probably see this, I'll make sure.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my point is that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education is struck out and immediately followed by a note that it was superceded, but Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education#Article_probation_2 is not struck out. Thryduulf (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks I missed it when I enacted the motion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)