Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Noticeboard[edit]


Clerks and trainees: Please coordinate your actions through the mailing list. The purpose of this page is for editors who are not clerks to request clerk assistance.

Arbitrator announcements[edit]

Members[edit]

These editors are the elected members of the Arbitration Committee (known as arbitrators). Votes of the committee are taken among the active members. Members are marked active or inactive so that the majority for new votes can be calculated. Members on wikibreak, not participating in arbitration within the past week, or indicating they will be absent are marked inactive.

Members moving back to active may remain inactive on some or all existing business. If you wish to know whether an Arbitrator is active on a particular matter, please ask on their talk page (or check the decision talk page, for cases). The list below is used to determine whether each arbitrator is active by default. Arbitrators who go on to participate in a vote will be counted as active for it even if they are listed as inactive below.

The following list is accurate as of 15 October 2014:

Inactive
  1. LFaraone (talk · contribs)
  2. Roger Davies (talk · contribs) (mostly inactive on new cases, with effect from 16 Feb)


Arbitrators, please note if you wish to declare yourself active or away/inactive, either generally or for specific cases. The clerks will update the relevant cases as needed. If you are returning, please indicate whether you wish to be: 1) Put back to active on all cases; 2) Left on inactive on all open cases, and only put to active on new cases; or 3) Left to set yourself to active on cases you wish (remember to update the majority on its /Proposed decision page).

Long term projects[edit]

Discussion[edit]

Please use this section if you are not a clerk or arbitrator, but require clerical assistance.

Net Four on "Kafziel's AfC actions" request[edit]

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correctly (only because I am trying to help clarify for dissenting Arbs) this vote makes the net four procedure no longer valid.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 (talkcontribslogs) 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)

Dan Murphy[edit]

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

Comment of 50.0.121.102[edit]

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)

Kafziel Workshop Closure Date[edit]

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)

non admin logging DS[edit]

Please see [1] and related ANI thread. 12:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Proposed decision implementation notes[edit]

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)

RfAr: Gun control[edit]

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)

Arbitration Clerks seeking new volunteers[edit]

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-l@lists.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

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2014[edit]

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

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

Partial inactivity[edit]

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)

The mailing list[edit]

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). Trijnsteltalk 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. :) Trijnsteltalk 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)

Log entry removals at WP:ARBATC[edit]

On the case page WP:ARBATC, a non-admin editor, NE Ent ([2]), and an editor who is the subject of log entries, Neotarf ([3]), 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 (talkcontribslogs) 23:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for attending to this matter.  Sandstein  12:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for Clerk assistance[edit]

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⇒ ɖכþ 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⇒ ɖכþ 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)

Minor tweaks to wording - edit summary, and list order[edit]

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)

Please clerk this action[edit]

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

Request for Clerk assistance 2[edit]

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: [4] 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)

Semi-retired[edit]

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)

Yes check.svg Done. Thanks, AGK [•] 14:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Best wishes, Rockfang! → Call me Hahc21 15:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC request[edit]

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)

Request for Clerk assistance 3[edit]

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)

Information[edit]

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 [5] 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 ] 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)
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)

Waldorf Education Review remedy 2[edit]

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 (talkcontribslogs) 07:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Proposed decision[edit]

(cross-posting to Hac21)

1) For Proposal #1 I count 4 votes: Worm, Seraphimblade, GorillaWarfare, and T. Canens. NativeForeigner voted for this only as a second choice to #1.2 Also, this would seem to indicate Mr. Fuchs might not support a Jimbo page ban. So it would appear the implementation notes are not correct wrt #1.

2) Why does this section say four votes are needed to close the case? There are nine active arbitrators. —Neotarf (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding 1), 5 votes are a majority, and David Fuchs voted support for remedy 1. In 1.1 the implication was that he was voting against a ban from Jimbo's talk page only not (given he supported 1) from administrative boards in addition to Jimbo's talk page (particularly since he decided not to change his vote after opposing 1.1).
Regarding 2), per arbitration procedures four net votes or an absolute majority (+ 24 hours waiting time) are required to close. In this case (as in almost all cases) four net votes in support and confirmation on the clerks mailing list meant that the case was closed. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Callanecc parsed my intent properly, although I can see how it would be a bit confusing from my wording; for that I apologize. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)