Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks

Noticeboard

Clerks' noticeboard (shortcut WP:AC/CN)

Clerks' Noticeboard

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Wikipediocracy-related conduct		21 October 2024	4/1/2
Marine 69-71	Motions	26 October 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

---

This noticeboard's primary purpose is to to attract the attention of the clerks to a particular matter by non-clerks. Non-clerks are welcome to comment on this page in the event that the clerks appear to have missed something.

Private matters

---

The clerks may be contacted privately, in the event a matter could not be prudently addressed publicly (i.e., on this page), by composing an email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org; only the clerk team and individual arbitrators have access to emails sent to that list.

Procedures

---

A procedural reference for clerks (and arbitrators) is located here.

---

Arbitrators, 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.

Inserting one's own political ideology into an encyclopedia entry

This is with respect to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Liberal_Party_(Brazil)

I suspect that people are inserting their own personal political ideology into encyclopedia entries by citing opinions written in news articles for facts.

Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view clearly states that if an opnion is stated in a news then it must be clarified in the encyclopedia entry that it is opinion of someone and not a fact

"Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

How can people malign a Brazilian political party that just won a democratic election as "far-right" unless they are also of the opinion that majority of people of Brazil are also far right? It seems to me that people who are opposed to the political party are inserting their personal opinions as part of the encyclopedia entry.

The citations given are from websites with questionable integrity like infomoney.br, of whose charter and aims we know nothing about. Also the citations do not explain at all why the labelling of "far-right" has been done, it just uses it casually.

People are using the label of far-right freely without any thought because of their own prejudice. As you can see, this is a well recognized phenomenon that political opponents are trying to label Bolsanaro as far right

https://www.foxnews.com/world/fascist-populist-debate-over-describing-brazils-bolsonaro

It is highly improper to use newspaper articles in this manner. News can be used as citation to say "event x occurred", but not as a conclusive evidence to say "x is a bad person" or "x is a far right" or "x is a far left". I disagree with this kind of biased approach and I request for comments and clarification of guidelines regarding whether it is acceptable to state opinions in news as facts in wikipedia voice, in this manner.

Berzerker king (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Berzerker king: We're sorry, content disputes fall outside the remit of the clerks of the Arbitration Committee. This noticeboard is for discussing or inquiring about procedural matters in proceedings before the Arbitration Committee. Please see WP:DR for more information about resolving content disputes. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for Clerk

Please assist with Arbitration case "Wildland-urban interface relevant to Camp Fire. " I am not proficient in Wikipedia protocol and haven't even had a change to discuss the issue because I am having to answer protocol issues in my request to discuss... Granite07 (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

There are, at present, only three active clerks: L235, Cameron11598 (a trainee, who's being baptized by fire :-)) and me. WP:VOLUNTEER; Thanksgiving is this Thursday in the US, and I'm hosting family for the week. Please chill; we can't edit on demand. All the best, Miniapolis 23:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Evidence clerking

If you think it prudent to correct the record, can you strike "functionaries" and insert "administrators" at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Evidence#Evidence presented by Alanscottwalker, per Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Evidence#Admin self-unblock rights. Thanks much. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker:  Done diff. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Mistake in Arbitration Committee Proceedings box

I noticed that the current case request listed in the box at the top of this very page (and widely transcluded) still reads as "Jytdog" dated 27 November 2018 where it should now read "Arbitrator BU Rob13 at WP:ARCA" dated 4 December 2018. The template in question is Template:ArbComOpenTasks.2.99.211.105 (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Updated by Cameron11598. Miniapolis 21:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Giant Snowman

DGG has !voted to accept Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GiantSnowman, which, takes the tally to 7/0/0. Per WP:AC/P#Opening of proceedings. It's more than 24 hours since Doug Weller cast the 4th accept (17:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)), and more than 48 hours since the case request was opened, so I think it's time to create the case pages. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo: Thanks for reaching out. The clerks and committee are aware of the status of this case. As with any case opening, there are logistical and procedural issues to work out, such as who will have responsibility for issues and what the rules of the case will be. The case will be opened when those issues are decided. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up, clerking is needed on the evidence page (diff). Discussion in the talk page is also getting a bit too personal... –FlyingAce^✈hello 22:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Handled by BradV --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Evidence

I was not previously aware of this page. I see User:FlyingAce had an issue with part of my evidence but they missed that I immediately modified that post because it did not convey my intended meaning.

Please add the following under my name on the evidence page so that the early closures are in evidence and can be considered during the drafting and decision stages. Also I wish to respond to the Arb question and various comments about football:

Premature closure of discussion and effects

Two Admins closed portions of the ANi discussion as described at [1]. The acceptance of the case demonstrates there were in fact legitimate issues raised at ANi worthy of examination, contrary to the closures. These two Admins took no action to warn or sanction GiantSnowman, did not open this case to ensure the conduct was examined properly, and went against emerging consensus. The closures could easily be interpreted as endorsing GiantSnowman's conduct, and appear to have emboldened GiantSnowman to carry on with more mass reverts and blocks after the closures as seen in other evidence and the ANi discussion incorporated into evidence by the linked scope statement.

Response to opinion on Football topic

An Arb asked about issues with football as a topic. Because of my AfC involvement I watch 36,000 pages across many topics. From what I see in editing patterns, Football is a "fan topic" like movies, video games, Hollywood celebs etc that attracts casual "fan" editors who may not follow policy perfectly. Football is not uniquely or even especially impacted by "fan editing" compared to other "fan topics". Therefore no special allowances that run against normal policy and practice are justified.

Legacypac (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Two days and no one has acted upon this or reacted in any way? I have posted it to the evidence page, please lift this stupid restriction and let Legacypac participate like everybody else. Fram (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

We'll post it. I'm on a phone right now but otherwise I'd have done it. Please rest assured that posts to this page before the deadline will be considered even if posted on the evidence place after the deadline. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 10:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't bother, I already did at the time of my first post. Evidence may need rebuttal, elaboration, ... and the sooner it is posted, the better. Posting it after the evidence phase is finally finished is not really helpful. Fram (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

To add to what Fram said here, not posting asap (or otherwise commenting on why it is not being posted), means the editing restriction imposed, is actually much MUCH harsher than what was claimed as he really IS barred from participation entirely in that case, despite your claim of the contrary in the wording and it SERIOUSLY impacts the credibility of the claim that you would have posted evidence submitted by email, with the difference that this way, at least the rest of us knows that evidence was submitted, while had they still been required to use email, we would be none the wiser. Combined with the impressions AGK gives (as discussed on the workshop talkpage), is paints a REALLY dark picture for the outcome of this case, regardless of outcome. 84.219.252.47 (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)