Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks

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


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]


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 28 January 2015:

  1. AGK (talk · contribs)
  2. Yunshui (talk · contribs)
Outgoing arbitrators
These arbitrators' terms expired on December 31, 2014. Outgoing arbitrators have the option of remaining active on cases that were pending during their terms. For 2014-2015, this applies to the GamerGate case only.
  1. Beeblebrox (talk · contribs)
  2. David Fuchs (talk · contribs)
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs)
  4. Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs)

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]


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

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)

Discretionary sanctions at Historicity of Jesus[edit]

This case request has been sitting at <9/1/0/1> for the last 5 days or so.[1] Is there typically a delay before moving a request into an open case? Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Committee function questions[edit]

Greetings, I'm from Thai Wikipedia and I'm working on newly-set Arbitration there. I have some questions:

  1. Where do the arbitrators discuss the evidence and statements presented to them?
  2. Do they ask the parties to the case themselves for more detail or evidence?
  3. What will they do if all parties just not follow the schedule? (I've seen that there are due dates here.)

Regards, --ThHorus (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Did I forget to tip someone?[edit]

Re Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#DangerousPanda -- reading the criteria atWikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Deciding_of_requests -- Carcharoth's vote [2] made the count plus four well over 24 hours ago, so there's a case, right? NE Ent 21:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep. And a clerk will open it as soon as he can get to it (we have already asked). Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|Talk]])Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

I have been told that the code at {{Casenav/sandbox}} "box does not render correctly" but no details have been supplied, despite my request.

{{Casenav/sandbox}} is a fix for {{Casenav}}, which has a parameter case name = which is not fully implemented - shortcut, schedule and staff are not working.

The comparison between the two is at {{Casenav/testcases}}, where you can see with a case name set, the sandbox version works correctly, the live version doesn't. (Without a case name both break, because it is not an arbitration case page.)

The same comparison has been on the talk page of the template Template talk:Casenav for 14 days and no-one has identified any problems.

I have also tested the sandbox template with "preview" on 17 arbitration case pages, and have seen no issues. I have even tab-switched between the livepage and the preview, I can still see no difference. I have asked at WP:VP(T), no-one has identified the problem, let alone a solution.

I have also been told that only Arbitration Clerks can change templates used on Arbitration pages.

Therefore I request my colleagues on the Clark Force to advise me if there is an issue that affects their use of this corrected template, specifically how the "box renders" in which case I will fix it. If not I cordially invite them to restore the fixed version of {{Casenav}}

All the best: Rich Farmbrough03:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC).

Rich, we've asked AGK to take a look when he has time as he knows how the arbitration templates work the best of all of us. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 13:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Well that's very nice of you. Unfortunately AGK had put the ball in your court:

Please find a clerk, explain what you need fixed, and they will do it for you

He has also said that Casenav is an extremely complicated template, written by me and Xeno over a number of months. (it is actually fairly straightforward, though it has some fundamental flaws) and given that he begrudged 10 minutes to respond to MSJ I find it highly unlikely that he will have the time to look at what is, after all, a very simple change correcting a problem he introduced with edits like this.
Let me make it clear, I do not think this is the responsibility of the clerks, but AGK does. Given that you seem to share my view I will be creating a new {{Edit protected}} request shortly. Of course if anyone does identify this phantom "box renders inconsistently" issue, please let me know and disable the {{Edit protected}} request.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough21:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC).

Landmark Worldwide[edit]

Could I have your advice please on this section on the PD Talk page for the Landmark case: [3]. Is the behaviour of John Carter and Astynax acceptable? To me it feels more and more like an orchestrated witch hunt or an attempt at baiting. Should I respond further, or have I made my position entirely clear already?

While I'm here, could I also enquire why Lithistman has not been added as a party to this case? I requested that he should be on my submission to the original Request page on 20th September: [4], and evidence has been provided about his violations on The Evidence and Workshop pages, and yet now I am told that he is not a party and it is too late to add him? DaveApter (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Please drop the stick. You were told it was too late to add another party to the case. I know you're frustrated, but you should let thus go. LHMask me a question 13:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
@DaveApter: I need to review our Guide to arbitration and check with some more experienced clerks as my first review did not leave me satisfied I could answer the question completely. Working on it now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Please correct list numbering[edit]

Currently the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Proposed decision#Carolmooredc topic banned oppose list has incorrect numbering, needs the list format tweaked, ":::" should be ":#:". --Mirokado (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This is now fixed. --Mirokado (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

redact request[edit]

Off topic snarky comment [5] and original post. NE Ent 19:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs' request[edit]

Please could a clerk take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request and appeal: Interaction ban and see if they can impose some structure. Thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


There is an error in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF#Focus and locus of dispute in which the text reads "the the" rather than "the". If it is usual to correct trivial typos, then this should be done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Fixed, thanks. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Implementation notes for Landmark Worldwide case[edit]

Could these be updated please? thanks DaveApter (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 15:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much clearer now. But shouldn't 'Nwlaw63 topic banned' be 2-5 rather than 2-4? DaveApter (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

There are only 4 oppose votes on that proposal. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Templates and Mobile Site[edit]

There seems to be something weird about the arbitration page templates (PD template etc) that means they don't fold down properly when viewed on the mobile site ( Most articles collapse so that all text below first-level headings is hidden initially, but this doesn't work on the arbitration case pages. Given how large some of those pages get, it makes navigation on mobile devices very unwieldy. Could someone have a look at it if they get a moment, please? GoldenRing (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Help with request[edit]

I have tried to add a request for arbitration but obviously messed it up so I removed it. The proposed content can be found at [6]

Could you let me know what I have done wrong please. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. A content dispute Martin has failed to achieve consensus in, and has been forum shopping around for quite some time. There really is no place for Arbcom in this, as it is out of their remit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
It is nothing of the sort. It is about the behaviour of a group of editors. But let us let Arbcom decide if they want to take it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
You mean that they disagree with you. Because when you boil it down to it, that's what you've been complaining about the most. that they "won't accept a compromise" that you proposed, and which seems to basically boil down to giving you exactly what you want. That they "are quoting an essay as consensus" and having others agree that's a good statement of consensus. That they object to your proposed changes and give reasons that you don't like. That neither your talk page arguments, your RFCs, your village pump posts, your attempts to change guidelines - none of them have been successful at convincing anyone, and you really want to force your opinions through. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Let us let Arbcom decide if they want to take the case on. You can put your side to them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Clerks Seeking New Volunteers[edit]

The Arbitration Committee clerk team is currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors (adminship not needed) 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 if you are interested in becoming a clerk, and a clerk will reply with an acknowledgement of your message and we will get back to you with some questions. If you have any questions you'd like an answer to before applying please feel free to ask on the clerks noticeboard or any current clerk.

For the Arbitration Committee clerks, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Um, is there some reason you've put the "discuss this" text in this, the section that it links to? John Carter (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Removed. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The reason for initially commenting was, basically, I myself kinda doubt that I would be a reasonable candidate, and, honestly, I think I probably mouth off too often around arbitration cases to be much use, but I wouldn't mind trying to do some work in the area if anyone thought it would help, maybe as a kind of "reservist". John Carter (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi John, if you'd like to apply please send an email to so we can keep all the applications in one place. Thanks, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 03:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Request regarding Begoon[edit]

Hello. Begoon has been insulting me on the arbitration pages and is now making false statements about me.[7] The case is not about me, nor is the finding that is under discussion. Begoon is inserting personal attacks whenever I try to comment. This derails the conversation and prevents me from having a substantial discussion about the issues. Could one of you please hat the irrelevant tangent and ask Begoon to keep the discussion on topic, and to refrain from unseemly commentary about other editors (such as me) that has no bearing on the case? Thank you. Jehochman Talk 18:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman, I've left them a message and I'll keep an eye. It's usually better not to hat discussions yourself but to ask a clerk to do it (either here or by email) so that things like this don't happen. Thanks, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 23:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
This matter has been fully resolved. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 01:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

BASC Members[edit]

The main WP:ARBCOM#BASC page needs to be updated with the current BASC membership (found at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee/About). I'd do it myself as it is a very simple thing, but I know clerks generally prefer to be the sole editors of pages within ArbCom-space. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  18:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just changed it to a link to the /About page rather than duplicating the content. Thanks, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 23:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate ArbCom discrepancy.[edit]

The 'Ryulong Remedy Calculation' is in error and Remedy 5.3 should be passing. As R5.5 is failing, Courcelles has altered his/her preference to 5.3, and Guerillero's package vote for 5.1, 5.4, and 5.5 is invalidated, reverting to his/her last choice vote to support 5.3. Counting all distributed votes, this gives 7 supporting, which giving DGG's abstention is a majority. NativeForeigner may also be supporting, his comment is unclear and Courcelles requested clarification, but his support is not necessary for this remedy to pass. (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Been addressed, not sure if as a result of seeing this comment or not. Regardless, thanks! (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Immediate close required?[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Proposed decision#Motion to close reads

" The Clerks will close the case immediately if there is an absolute majority voting to close the case or all proposals pass unanimously, otherwise it will be closed 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast. "

but Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Motions to close reads

"A final consideration period of at least 24 hours will usually elapse between the casting of the fourth net vote to close the case and the implementation of any remedies. However, closure may be fast-tracked if (i) all clauses pass unanimously or (ii) an absolute majority vote in the motion to do so. "

Are the clerks required to immediately close as soon as there is a a majority, as the first quote above seems to imply, or are they allowed to close immediately or to wait up to 24 hours (or longer?), as the second quote above seems to imply?

Give the fact that arbitrators occasionally change their close votes based on arguments by other arbitrators, I would argue for the later interpretation. Also, the first interpretation seems like it would require the clerks to monitor the page 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It's very clear. It will close 24 hours after the 4th net vote unless an impetus to fast track occurs. There are two ways to fast track, majority voting to close or unanimous passing of all clauses. When the majority votes to close, the fast track clause is empowered and the case closes immediately. There is no reason to wait 24 hours. Ries42 (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I already know your opinion on the question at hand. It's why I asked the above question. I am looking for an answer from a clerk or arbitrator. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
We're not required to close the case at any point, the first quote is just the easiest and simplest wording. In this instance the case may be closed at any point after the 8th vote as there is no required waiting period. So rather than waiting 24 from the 8th vote, after checking with arbitrators on the clerks mailing list (who did ask for some time rather and an immediate close), it'll be closed in the next few hours. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 22:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)