Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee | Clerks

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arcticocean (talk | contribs) at 13:30, 27 January 2008 (→Some thoughts and proposals: resolved). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Clerks' noticeboard (shortcut WP:AC/CN)

Clerks' Noticeboard

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[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)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024

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-l@lists.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.

Pending actions

Clerks and informal helpers, please coordinate your actions through this section, so that we don't have multiple clerks working on the same cases at the same time. An IRC channel, #wikipedia-en-arbcom-clerks and a mailing list are also available, although the mailing list is low traffic and has a public archive.

To be opened

Cases may be opened 24 hours after the fourth net vote to accept has been made.

Motions and temporary injunctions

Motions and temporary injunctions are made by arbitrators on /Proposed decision, and have the same majority for passage as the case itself.

To be closed

Cases may be closed after after the fourth net vote to close, but generally wait at least 24 hours after the first motion to close. In cases where the arbitrators have disagreed and not all the findings or remedies have passed, wait at least 24 hours after the final close vote is cast to give other arbitrators a chance to raise objections.

Reassignment/breaks

Generally, the clerk who opens a case should follow the progress of the case and be available to answer questions from the parties. If for any reason you need someone to take over one or more of your current cases (too busy, wikibreak, etc.), post a request here.

Mentorship co-ordination

This section is used for discussion between trainee clerks (listed here) and appointed clerks, including the trainee's mentor, for issues which fall outside the above sections and require discussion.

Other work

All other issues.

Active/Inactive Arbitrators

General list

This list will be used to set the number of active Arbitrators and the case majority on cases as they open. As of January 25, 2008, there are 12 active Arbitrators, so the majority is 7 for *new* cases (that is, those accepted after the "as of" date).

Active:

  1. Blnguyen
  2. Deskana
  3. FloNight
  4. FT2
  5. Jdforrester
  6. Jpgordon
  7. Kirill Lokshin
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven)
  9. Newyorkbrad
  10. Paul August
  11. Sam Blacketer
  12. UninvitedCompany

Away/inactive:

  1. Charles Matthews
  2. FayssalF (remain active on cases i participated in, away on cases accepted post-January 25)
  3. Thebainer (active on current cases, away on cases accepted post-January 19)

Arbitrator announcements

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.
  • Resuming active duty. Still active on IRC, and please consider me active on all cases that are accepted today or any time in the future (but inactive on all previous ones). --Deskana (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clerks, I'm withdrawing from the two cases in which I still played a part: Matthew Hoffman and IRC. In the former, I have a pre-existing dispute with Whig (talk · contribs), a party blocked by Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs), and that case is sensitive enough without even the appearance of a conflict of interest. In the latter, I've had it with Giano's provocations; his next remark will provoke a response I'll be expected to apologize for, except I'll likely refuse. By and large commenters on the talk page approve of what he's doing; at least it doesn't bother them enough to provoke a remonstrance. The community gets the arbcom it wants; let the new arbs take a bruising. I've given what I can. Please strike any and all votes I've made on these two cases, with the exception of any motions already passed. It's been a pleasure working with you over the last year. Mackensen (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be having limited presence online between Jan. 26th and Feb. 3rd. Remaining active on cases i participated in. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

Clarification from the Committee on Wikipedia:General sanctions and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions

In the past, various users have attempted to keep lists of editors under sanction, most of which have withered on the vine through lack of attention. The previous Committee expressed zero interest in maintaining or having maintained the list of users on probation at Wikipedia:Probation. Is it the Committee's intent that Wikipedia:General sanctions and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions shall be an official document, to be maintained by the Committee and its clerks? Or is this an unofficial volunteer effort of its editors, to be maintained on a volunteer basis. Thatcher 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher raises a valid question, although it should be noted that User:Kirill Lokshin started both pages. They serve a valid purpose because it is not efficient to scan the entire list of completed requests in order to discover if a particular article or editor is subject to restrictions. I believe the pages were started because the new ArbCom wanted to review all existing sanctions and restrictions. Once the lists exist, I think it makes sense to maintain them. Jehochman Talk 18:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are not, at this point, "official" in the sense of being formally approved by the Committee as a whole; I basically started them as a personal project, since not having a canonical list has made extra work for me before. Having said that, I see no reason why they cannot be maintained in the future; certainly, having such lists available would make it much easier for people to request enforcement of the restrictions. Kirill 19:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, it would be much easier to find. I was planning to add to the pages but unfortunatly the prefixindex doesn't sort by date, making it much harder. :-(--Phoenix-wiki 19:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important that we make a good effort to keep them updated whenever we close a case or motion; having this point of reference will be of great help for everyone involved— and for uninvolved admins as well. One thing missing IMO is an expiry on the General Sanctions. I'll take a minute and add that later this evening. — Coren (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually all of the general sanctions are indefinite; I'd just put the expiration date for those that have one into the "Notes" field. Kirill 01:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that the list is constantly changing. New editors are added to the Digwuren, MAcedonia and A-A cases all the time and the logs there make no mention of these pages, nor would anyone know unless someone makes a habit of checking. Every article on probation has the potential to result in multiple topic bans which may be short or long, and logged or not. If these lists are advisory lists maintained by interested editors, that is one thing. If they are to be part of the Arbitration process and a new responsibility for the clerks that could be quite a chore, particularly watching and tracking down enforcement actions at WP:AE and all the case logs. Thatcher 01:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think these should be official, canonical lists. Given the time and effort that goes into creating and enforcing a sanction or restriction, the additional time of organizing the list is an order of magnitude less. However, I do not think it is necessary to log short term restrictions. We could place a note at the lists saying that only remedies 6 months or longer will be logged. Presumably short term remedies will be enforced by the involved admins. Longer remedies tend to be forgotten because of turnover. The lists provide institutional memory. At the moment we have a surplus of volunteers. Jehochman Talk 01:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If/when the page becomes more official, we can probably get people imposing sanctions to add editors themselves. Kirill 01:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have expected that only direct remedies would be found on those pages but not, say, editors who fall under a general sanction at a later time. This would be a listing of what the AC stated more than a list of who or what it affected to date. At any rate, I agree this would be a fair amount of work— any MBA's in the room to do a cost/benefit analysis for us?  :-) — Coren (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a possible counter to the trend of attention-withering we often see in these types of projects, perhaps we might look at inserting an instruction to log sanctions performed post-case closure in the relevant instruction pages? Anthøny 14:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea Anthony. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are we going to go anywhere with this, in everybody's opinion? Anthøny 21:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated it so everything from 2007 and 2008 is included. If the clerks add new restrictions ongoing, this list will remain useful. There seem to be about four entries per month. This is much less work than having to hunt for things each time the information is needed. Jehochman Talk 21:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! BTW, I have updated the procedures page to include instructions to list any decisions that include general sanctions on a topic area or article at Wikipedia:General sanctions, and to list any decisions that curtail an individual editor's contributions at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Anthøny 21:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Users "voting" on workshop pages

I've noticed users are adding a lot of "Support--~~~~" comments to workshop proposals. Shouldn't this be discuraged? It isn't adding anything. The comment sections are just there for people to make suggestions and comments and they'll be ignored unless they're doing that. Perhaps it could be added to the text at the top of the template?--Phoenix-wiki 22:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop is a prime example.--Phoenix-wiki 22:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The prime purpose of the Workshop is to provide a location for interested editors, the parties and the arbitrators to develop possible routes for bringing a close to the dispute at hand with as much benefit to Wikipedia as possible. One really has to consider whether these votes are beneficial to that aim; that's a matter of opinion, more than anything else. Certainly, it doesn't actively detract or harm the process, but as for actually helping it? My own opinion is that it really doesn't matter: perhaps it's getting people involved in the Arbitration, which arguably isn't such a bad thing. I suppose it's a matter for the arbitrators themselves: whether or not they find that that gets in the way of the process. Anthøny 22:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, whether parties to a dispute would support or oppose a given finding or remedy can be helpful to decision-making. For example, if editors on both sides of a dispute indicate "support" and thus agree that a given finding or remedy is correct or would be helpful, then the arbitrators may conclude that including it in the decision would help resolve the dispute. Reasoned comments can be more useful than just a bare "support" or "oppose," but I don't see any need to change the workshop instructions relating to this issue at this time. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a clerk?

Is this the right place to find a clerk to answer a question, or is there a better place to ask? My question is about the MatthewHoffman case. see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Proposed decision#Resumption of voting and summary of interim activity. I see the clerk named in the case signed the "Reassignments/breaks" section week ago, and recently updated that to say he is still busy and can be contacted by e-mail if needed. Given that voting may resume, would it be best to have someone more active on that case, or not? The other stuff I've asked over there is probably best answered over there. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my jumping in here, but I think at this point the future of this case hasn't been agreed upon by the arbitrators active on it, so the clerks probably don't really have any information to provide right now. Within the next couple of days there will hopefully be some decision about how to proceed, and I will try to make sure that the clerks are aware of it and that it is posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe post that over there? My question here was to draw attention to that post, not to get an answer here. My question here was who is the clerk at the moment? Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard&oldid=187246653"