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
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 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.

---

Clerks and trainees, 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, Clerks-l, are also available for private co-ordination and communication, although the mailing list is fairly low traffic.

Pending Requests

All work relating to pending requests on WP:RfAr.

Someone should probably ask about the Tang Dynasty amendment request.. It has more than majority vote in passing for most of the items there. (I'm recused on that one.) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Open Cases

All work relating to Arbitration cases already opened

Active/inactive arbitrators

This list will be used to set the number of active Arbitrators and the case majority on cases as they open. As of 27 December, there are 10 active Arbitrators, and the majority is therefore 6 for all new cases (that is, those accepted after the "as of" date). See WP:AC/C/P#Calculating the majority for help. The master list is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Current members.

Active (as of 27 December 2009):

1. Carcharoth
2. Cool Hand Luke (active on cases accepted after 22 November)
3. Coren
4. FayssalF
5. Newyorkbrad
6. Risker
7. Rlevse
8. Roger Davies
9. Stephen Bain
10. Vassyana

Away or inactive:

1. FloNight
2. Wizardman

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. 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).

• I'm going inactive on all cases except the EE mailing list case. I'm staying active on BASC and other select issues. Please mark me inactive on the the case pages. Thanks, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Clerks, I'm going inactive on on-wiki matters (requests, motions and cases) except Climate Change if it opens for the next two months. I remain active on internal matters, but should be marked inactive by default on new requests. — Coren ^(talk) 16:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Socionics

"Socionics" needs to have its majority updated (currently says 9 arbs active, but should be 8), and implementation notes created. Paul August ☎ 23:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Long term projects

• None, currently.

Discussion

Still available for help

Back in August I posted a notice here saying I'm available to help out with any tasks a non-clerk might be able to do. This is still true. :) Rockfang (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that we've just taken on a new batch of trainee clerks, so we probably won't be looking to take on any more trainees for at least a few months. However, we do maintain a list of editors who are interested in becoming trainees. I will suggest to the other clerks that we put you on that list. Thanks for volunteering! AGK 12:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It was pointed out to me that I may be misinterpreting your request as a willingness to become a trainee clerk, so I make a point of asking: are you willing to be considered as a trainee, Rockfang? If not, then, by all means, do jump in wherever there seems to be a need for input or assistance (although you probably ought to read Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks#Helping out before diving into any "clerky" tasks.) Regards, AGK 19:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to be considered as a trainee. But if the program is currently full, or if there is no need for new trainees, I can wait.--Rockfang (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've asked for you to be added to the list of candidates to be considered at the next intake of trainees. In the meantime, please do volunteer where you can around the various pages that fall under the prerogative of the clerks (where your input would be appropriate). Regards, AGK 20:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Display problem with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

I posted a message about a display problem with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Header. Lankiveil took a shot at making the change but now it looks worse than before. If you would kindly drop Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Header down to semi-protection for a few hours I would be willing to fix it. I have access to Windows, Mac OS, IE, Firefox, Safari & Opera, so I can fully test it. I'll even download Chrome if needed. Also, is there some reason that you want the case summary box to the right of the TOC? I'm sure that people with laptops aren't happy about having to scroll over to it, if they even know it's there. I think it would look better centered above the TOC, but I won't move it unless you agree with the change. Thanks! UncleDouggie (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If you let me know when you can be online to fix it, I'll be happy to drop it down to semiprotection for you to work with it. I'm a bit wary of just unprotecting it and leaving it though, since it's a reasonably high visibility template on a page that tends to attract controversy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC).

I for one have no problem with dropping the protection on a temporary basis. As Lankiveil says, however, I'd rather that this was done only for periods where the code is being adjusted; so UncleDouggie, please give one of us a shout on our talk page, and the protection will be duly amended (for, say, three hours?). Oh, and thanks again, Douggie, for your help. AGK 19:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Already sorted :-). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC).

Procedural questions

Here are some questions I have. Feel free to add or comment. Manning (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

1 Who sets the deadlines for evidence, workshopping etc. Can clerks formally request the establishment of deadlines?

2 How do we cope with changes to effective Arb numbers during a case? Should we maintain of log of status changes? Related examples:

• An arbitrator elects to recuse midway through a case. Do prior votes still count or are they refactored as comments?
• An arbitrator reclassifies as "inactive" midway through a case. Do prior votes still count or are they refactored as comments?
• An arbitrator resigns. (This case has already been clarified, all votes on unresolved matters are refactored as comments)
• An inactive Arb returns midway through a case. Can their vote alter the outcome of temporary motions that otherwise were resolved?

Motions

(1) In regular cases clerks do not become involved in tallying until a motion to close the overall case has been passed. However with the new "single motion" framework, the time for action is not so clear-cut. So when should a clerk get involved in tallying? Possible suggestions:

• At the moment a motion has achieved a definite pass/fail result
• After a predetermined period has elapsed since a motion achieved a definite result (eg. 24/48 hours)
• When an arbitrator leaves a note instructing a clerk to close the motion.

(2) What should be the "elapsed time" conditions for closing motions, (if any)?

(3) Should each motion have a clerk notes area? (Currently the notes section falls at the end of a group of motions).

Manning: I think all of these were answered on clerks-l, but if any were not, or any responses were unclear, then please do speak up. We want to make sure that our newcomers are exhaustively trained! AGK 10:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ryan Postlethwaite

A discussion is currently being held on clerks-l concerning the return of Ryan, a former clerk who retired earlier this year, to active service as a clerk. Contributions would be welcome. AGK 20:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

With the discussion on the mailing list having finished, I am happy to say that Ryan Postlethwaite has returned to serving as a Committee clerk. AGK 19:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Note

Hope I'm allowed to post here - it this belongs elsewhere, feel free to move to the proper venue. That whole RFAR request/case (the "Administrators aiding a sock puppet at RFA" one) really needs a clerk. There's some folks posting outside their own section that's making it a little jumbled. Just thought I'd mention it to you guys. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  17:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are allowed to post on here! Thank you for bringing the situation to our attention, Ched. I've slapped the thread into place, so everything ought to be back to normal now. Do please let us know (on this page or elsewhere) if any more instances of wandering comments arise. Regards, AGK 23:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Updating of clerking procedures

I am working, armed with some suggestions from Carcharoth and my own ideas about how the page could be improved, on an update of the current procedures page. My progress to date is at WP:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures/S. All are welcome to contribute or comment—and any suggestions would be particularly welcome. Thanks, AGK 22:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Workshop/evidence editnotice

Could somebody please make use of their superior-to-my-own parserfunction knowledge to adjust the arbitration space edit notice to only display on the main requests page (and not also on evidence and workshop pages, as it currently does). Thatcher brought this up some time ago, but it never was looked into. The template is here: Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. AGK 22:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Improper tally at Case/Speed of light

Resolved

 – tally was correct Manning (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The injunction tally shows only 4 support votes and no abstentions. The table shows that 5 votes are needed to carry. The argument is made that a 24 hour wait with no response is tantamount to abstention. Thus the claim of 4 net support votes; however, that interpretation of "net" is not consonant with the table. Inasmuch as I myself have often been incommunicado for several days or weeks, I do not see this action as fitting correct procedure. Either an abstention is obtained or another vote in favor, or the action is not carried. Brews ohare (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

An injunction (different than a motion) needs only net 4 votes to pass. After the waiting period (usually 24 hours) the injunction passes since it has 4 supports and 0 opposes. I hope that helps. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk attention needed

Resolved

 – An arbitrator has closed the thread. Manning (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The situation with Brews ohare is continuing to deteriorate. I draw your attention to my remark [1] and expect you to do something about it. I will not stand for being called a lyncher. You already blocked somebody for calling other editors Nazis during the case. These people are on notice that such behavior will not be tolerated. Do something about it. Jehochman ^Talk 20:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

But this has nothing specifically to do with Brews' arbitration case. In fact, you can see here that some soapboxing that this Arbitration was trying to end is still going on, but Brews is behaving in an admirable way here. Why not raise the case at AN/I or at the noticeboard for incivility? Count Iblis (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Jehochman - People get a lot further in this world using "please" and "thank you".
• Count Iblis - this page is for alerting the clerks as to potential issues, not for discussion as to whether or not a complaint has merit. Manning (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Manning, I've already gone quite far in the world. Let me give you good advice: when your neighbor cries for help, help them. Don't lecture about please and thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 23:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Jehochman - I am sympathetic to off-wiki factors at present which may be increasing your stress levels. I also note that I immediately addressed the issue you raised by getting an arb to intervene. I simply noted that no-one ever appreciates being ordered around. We are all volunteers, and basic courtesy never hurts. Manning (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• We're all volunteers, and none of us should have to put up with stick. That includes both being called a lyncher and unfairly demanding messages.
  I would at this stage proceed to address Jehochman's grievance, but it seems that Risker already has done so. AGK 23:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, AGK, you lost me. How is calling somebody a lyncher equivalent to omitting the word "please" in a request for clerk assistance? Over many weeks I've been polite and patient, yet they still roam the wiki casting aspersions at me and others. Yeah, I'm peaved and it shows. (Manning, thank you for doing something about the problem. I appreciate it.) Jehochman ^Talk 00:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• No problem Jehochman - always happy to help. Congrats on the bub. Manning (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Congratulations from me too on the new arrival.
  I did not say that both instances of maltreatment were as severe as one another. I did say that both being called a lyncher and receiving a blunt and unwelcoming message are beyond the levels that a volunteer should be expected to suffer. If your patience is at an end, then you have my sympathies, and I—and every other clerk, I am sure—will do everything we can to assist you; but treating us like crap is in no case a good way of soliciting our assistance.
  AGK 20:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche

Could somebody ask this editor to consolidate their comments? I went to read what that case was about, and instead I am feeling like this editor needs to be restrained from making any further posts until they clean up the mess they've made. Jehochman ^Talk 22:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What comments? I'm not being lazy; I'd like you to cite the diffs that contain conduct you object to, for the avoidance of doubt. AGK 00:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

See the wall of text at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Statement by Epeefleche. You might want to hit Greg L with a trout while you're at it. His statement is also excessively verbose. Posting a wall of text is not beneficial to development of consensus, and frequently is perceived as disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 01:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In both cases, I have taken action. Thank you for drawing attention to the length of the statements. AGK 21:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

General questions announcement

Could someone please post to AC/N?--Tznkai (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean the general questions on ArbCom elections? The community advertise that where needed. The ArbCom elections are not official ArbCom business, and my view is that ArbCom as a body does not get involved in ArbCom elections, so announcing it there would not be appropriate. The Signpost, and the village pump, and various policy talk pages and noticeboards would be better places to announce this, in my view. What should be announced at WP:AC/N (the arbitration noticeboard) is the fact that some arbitrators are standing down at the end of their terms, and that the normal annual election is being held, and the new arrivals (when the process is done). I'll suggest that now. Carcharoth (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Need a clerk for a recall effort

Resolved

 – Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) wants to initiate recall proceedings against me. I'm standing for recall under Lar's criteria, so I need an impartial clerk to certify the petition. Anyone feeling particularly neutral at the moment?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Master of Puppets (talk · contribs) agreed to clerk this. It doesn't seem to be anything requiring an ArbCom clerk, just someone neutral. Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision

"That such conversations can, or are, done in secret "

Should be:

"That such conversations can be, or are, held in secret "

Rich Farmbrough, 06:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC).

I have emailed ArbCom about this issue. Thanks for raising it. Manning (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Although only arbitrators and clerks are supposed to edit the proposed decision page, I think that blatant, obvious, incontrovertible typos may be fixed by any editor. (Before I was an arbitrator, I would use an edit summary such as "fix typo, no substantive change" so that people with the page watchlisted wouldn't worry why I was editing it.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:a/r error

Could a clerk please take care of this? [2] --Tznkai (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the material and contacted the OP to determine details such as the involved parties, attempts at other forms of DR etc. After that either the OP or I will resubmit. Manning (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Cross post please

Cross post on AC/N please: [3] --Tznkai (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

 Cross posted - Tiptoety ^talk 18:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbComOpenTasks upd reqd

There are new amendment and clarification requests which are not on {{ArbComOpenTasks}}. Could a clerk add them. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The TOC of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment looks really weird. Where did this "Further discussion" section heading come from ? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

A "further discussion" section has been part of the amendment request template for a long time. Would you rather it were removed? I've updated the open tasks template ask you asked. AGK 01:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont want it removed; I am sure there are good reasons for your improvements back in June - I might have even sung its praises at the time. ;-)

What struck me was that we are seeing a lot of "Statement by yet another editor" as opposed to comments specifically about the first proposed Amendment, and SirFozzie has added what may be considered a separate amendment. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please doublecheck the dates? I'm certain that the Troubles elements have not been open for a month. --Elonka 01:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the date. Dougweller (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Elements, plural (look in the amendments section). The date is wrong, and the link is red. --Elonka 06:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka: Oops, that was my mistake. I've fixed all the errors. Thanks for catching that. AGK 11:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but now the case isn't linked at all, even though there obviously is a case. Would anyone object if I just went in and fixed it myself? --Elonka 17:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and fix it. KnightLago (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. The trick is that when dealing with a case with the newer naming system (Requests/Case/Name), the /interim template should be used, but when dealing with a case with the older naming system (Requests for Arbitration/Name), leave the "interim" part off.[4] At some point someone may wish to update the template logic to be able to tell which naming system is being used, and adjust automatically (or if you're planning on moving all cases to the new naming system, that would work too). In the meantime I've updated the template docs, to give a tip on whether to use "interim" or not.[5] Also, I noticed that the template by default has the Clarifications and Amendments "collapsed" or hidden. This may be one of the reasons that Clarifications & Amendments take so long to get arb attention, because of the "out of sight, out of mind" problem. To adjust things so that the default state is open, rather than collapsed, I believe this is the page that needs to be tweaked: Template:ArbComOpenTasks/6. But that's more of a workflow question, so I'll leave it up to the arbs on whether they want it hidden or not. If you do want it tweaked, and no one's sure how to do it, let me know and I'll go fix.  :) --Elonka 22:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so that's that interim means… I had presumed that where the arbitration case corresponding to the clarification/amendment thread was listed using the old naming format, we simply made do with no link. That's why I considered changing the entry to have no case link to be "fixing" the problem.
I have no problem with editors in good standing making helpful changes to pages that are typically classed as "clerk (and arbitrator) only." In most cases, it means less work for me :). AGK 23:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding

Calling attention to a call for a clerk by Durova:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack_Merridew_one_year_unban_review/mentors_page&diff=prev&oldid=328170974
• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page#Trolls everywhere

Note my comment's in there, too, pointing at the same issue in:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive51#Jack Merridew

The past discussion of this is at:

• Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Wikihounding

Nutshell: page needs terminology adjustment re 'stalking' as an inappropriate word.

See also

Robert John Bardo

Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (who pinged Durova about this on her talkpage;)

I'll contact people asking them to change it themselves and go from there. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

nb: it's a concern about the *talk* page, not the main one; WP#AE/Archive, too. Terima kasih, Jack Merridew 15:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:WIKIHOUNDING "To use the older term "Wikistalking" for this action is discouraged because it can confuse minor online annoyance with a real world crime." Dougweller (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Vulgar section of Arbcom

Resolved

 – Nothing left to see here, Tiptoety ^talk 06:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Calling attention to a call for a clerk.

Editor Eusebeus called my edits "scary shit".[6] which prompted Casliber to ask him to change this.[7]

Durova responded with a section, "A search for the four letter string "shit" brings up 22 occurrences on this page, including variants..." [8]

Jack Merridew replies with a picture of a fly on shit.[9] Jack Merridew already stated: "Have I called you a troll, lately? You *are*. See you at RFAR."[10] He crossed out the You *are*. after an admonishment from John.

I would kindly ask that a clerk remove this irrelevant vulgar section, or ask the editors too. I would think admin Durova would know better than such vulgarity. Ikip (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope none of us have to come here again. I hope the editors will stops arguing with you about the hounding thing. Ikip (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction - Durova added the picture of the fly [11]. - Josette (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It gets even more bizarre

After the vulgarity, above, now a supporter of Jack Merridew made this proposal on ANI, instead of coming here:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Ikip community banned from discussing Jack Merridew

This is unprecidented in my experience, has an opposing editor ever stopped another editor from commenting on an ongoing Arbcom?

Since I didn't know this was possible, I posted this:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Jack Merridew is community banned from following the edits of Emmette Hernandez Coleman, A Nobody, Daedalus969

Isn't the first the responsibility of the clerks, and the second the responsibility of arbcom?

Thanks. Ikip (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If the community sees fit to place a restriction on a user, then that restriction goes into effect. While the clerks can request a user be banned from participation in a case, and ArbCom can ban users, the community has full authority to do the same (and virtually whatever they want) through consensus. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Though, I will say this is not recommend as it only creates drama. Tiptoety ^talk 04:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

threaded discussion in Arb section

In re Alastair Haines amendment and clarification, Kaldari is commenting in the Arb section. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

fixed by a bold non-clerk (maybe what these pages need is someone with clerk experience, who's recently left a couple of committees, and might have a bit of spare time on their hands and a propensity for being a glutton for punishment? know anyone, john? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for hopping on that Privatemusings. Much appreciated. Tiptoety ^talk 22:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes to a case

See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration#Recent_changes_to_a_case, do you want to implement this ? I feel it could be useful. Cenarium (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

While I don't see any reason not to (looks like common sense to me), I would like to hear from others first before implementing it. Any Arbs have opinions? Tiptoety ^talk 17:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would love to have that. My watchlist is cluttered with case pages. KnightLago (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I was planning to set up some recent changes pages for us clerks (and Arbs) to use - these would have included cases, templates, etc. with some sort of grouping. If we do this, then all I need to do now is set up the other pages - I've been trying to decide how to group them but keep getting sidetracked and forgetting it. Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've detailed there how this could be done, you just have to agree on a format, for example Wikipedia:Arbitration/Changes/<case name>. Cenarium (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding cases to the IRC channel

Should Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures/CVP and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures/CVP/a be added to the Procedures page? Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin threat and wanting to comment in an ongoing arbitration

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here, move along. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There is currently an ongoing arbitration for Jack Merridew. I would like to comment in this arbitration on this talk page:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion_to_amend_User:Jack_Merridew.27s_2008_unban_motion

During this arbitration there were two ANIs opened about Jack Merridew's behavior by two editors which I commented on, as a result, User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise wrote:

"I would like you to take note of this formal warning to cease following Jack Merridew around with accusations and attempts to get him sanctioned. If I see you needlessly inserting yourself into negative threads about Jack again, you will be blocked for disruption"[12]

This threat was followed by User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise making jokes with his sockpuppet on Jack Merridew's talk page.[13][14]

User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise has unilaterally attempted to silence the strongest criticism of Jack Merridew.

Other than refactoring my comments a lot in this arbitration (thus the high edit count), I have done nothing which break our rules, whereas Jack Merridew's supporters have violated WP:CIVIL repeatedly in the arbitration itself. I have remained civil, despite being called a "troll", my edits have been called shit by three editors, (which was deleted by a clerk), a cancer, "transcends mockery", and an obsession. Bali Ultimate was blocked for 48 hours partly because of the "hounding" and personal attacks against me in this arbcom. (edit diffs if necessary)

Again, I would like to comment in this arbitration on this talk page: Motion to amend User I will continue to remain civil and I would ask that other editors do the same. Thank you for your time clerks, I will respect any decision you make. I am thankful to have gotten aquainted with a couple of the clerks in this process.

I am not sure if I should contact other editors about this posting. Ikip (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll put on record here that Ikip failed to notify me of this posting (I was informed of it by another editor). My warning against him stands, and as far as I am concerned it also extends to behaviour on the Arbcom pages. Ikip has made their opinion of the case abundantly known already; I don't see how at this point they could still have a legitimate interest in commenting further on the issue that wouldn't be a continuation of his very obvious wiki-hounding campaign. If he really needs to say something that hasn't been said already, I'm sure the arbs will be happy to hear it by e-mail. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody give you the right to decide who has "legitimate interest" in commenting. If Ikip wants to express his opinion he has every right in the world to do so. I'd also suggest you stop with your practice of issuing intimidatory warnings and threats.  Dr. Loosmark 

What part of Wikipedia:Hound#Wikihounding have I violated User:Future Perfect at Sunrise? Posting on an arbcom case followed by WP:ANI is not "stalking" (the old term). The last sentence of WP:HARASS, part of WP:HOUND: "Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly." Ikip (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Stop beating a dead horse. After reading the thread, I conclude that regarding the signature, we all need to either have a better sense of humor or to not let ourselves get worked over small things. Ikip's failure to notify is noted, but I'm pretty sure that I'd strongly recommend leaving Arbitration pages alone in the sense of letting the ArbCom do their job (as we are all aware of the fact that behavior on arbitration pages can and often factor into decisions.) Future Perfect at Sunrise should know that ArbCom generally prefer comments be written on wiki for transparency. What exactly do you two want us clerks to do here? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 16:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Who, me? I certainly never said I wanted you clerks to do anything. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Future Perfect at Sunrise, your "personal attack" is noted, since, like other Jack Merridew supporters, you can't support your baseless hounding accusation. Since the arbcom is pretty much finished now, there is no action needed. Ikip (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Furthering the dispute at ArbCom related pages would not help either of you two. Besides, I personally believe that due to the complexity of the matter, enforcing your warning should at best be left to others, Future Perfect at Sunrise. As neither of you wants anything done at this time, may I suggest both of you to take a step back as well as a deep breath. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Closing cases & the templates

Carcharoth has posted this on my talk page but I thought I'd bring it here so we can decide how and if to revise the Procedures page. "ACMajority is the template used on the proposed decision page to indicate the majority. ACA is the template used on the proposed decision talk page to list the status of arbitrators. The former is only needed during the case, and what is needed when the case is closed is effectively a copy-paste of what it says at that point. After a case closes, the ACA template needs to be substituted to show who voted on the case and (importantly) who was recused. This is important when additional motions are later proposed during requests for clarification and amendment. In my view, substituting dumps unnecessary code and extra bits on the page. Copy pasting the relevant bits does just as well for both templates. The important thing is that the page is preserved in the state it was when the case closed. If the templates are left as they are, then future changes to the template can change what is displayed, which is not good." Dougweller (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Implementation of the recent Matisse clarification motions

Just a note that some of the motions of the clarification of the Matisse case, including motions 10 and 11, have yet to be implemented.  Skomorokh  12:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 13:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Jack Merridew motion

copied from my talk page:

Hi. I see you archived this; [15][16]. Putting the motion at:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page#Motion to amend User:Jack Merridew's 2008 unban motion

seems wrong to me; that whole subpage is about the mentor-review and the proper place for the new motion would be:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review

This would seem to have been FloNight's intent when she skipped this level in the page hierarchy and it would allow the other discussion and the individual votes to be archived on the talk page as was done with the prior motion:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Final decision
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Proposed motions voting

The Jack Merridew one year unban review page should also offer a link to the mentors page.

An even cleaner approach would have the page at:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Jack Merridew one year unban review

... with the others tagging along or involve moving the prior motion to:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motions/Jack Merridew ban review motion

I made a few tweaks to the motion text adding wiki-links to the prior motion and to the bot account I had already created. I have also posted the new motion on my user page and on my history subpage. I would like this nice and tidy because it's part of my formal record. Thanks. Jack Merridew 10:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What's best for this? Dougweller (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

He's posted again:

"Thanks. I looked further and see this, which is giving last year's motion that's been superseded, not this new motion. This is a more verbose version of the entry down in the 2008 section. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)" Dougweller (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just fixed the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions page to offer the most recent motion. Beyond the above suggestions, it has occurred to me that is might be best to archive all this to new sections at the bottom of the pages:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion and
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion

Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

question for a clerk

could someone look at [[17]] and figure out what to do? my comments have been erased, which removes the context of the conversation. the other editor insists on editing/deleting the conversation. i request that an uninvolved party take a look and decide if tothwolf can delete my comments from the arbcom talk page. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I went an undid that edit, if he wants someone else's evidence changed, he should request it, not do it on his own. MBisanz ^talk 05:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Subsection link broken

Under: Wikipedia:ArbCom_election_results#Current_members

"The number of active Committee members on a given case affects the number of votes needed to reach a ruling. For example, if seven arbitrators are active on a given case, then four votes are needed to reach a majority decision; if ten are active, then six votes are needed, and so forth. More information on calculating the majority is available here."

Links to: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Calculating_the_majority which is no longer on the main wikipedia page. Someone care to update this? Ikip (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed it. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Slight overrun on statement

Just a heads-up for info (no reply needed). There's a slight overrun on the Jehochman initial statement I posted (~595 words vs "about" 500). I'm under the impression that is okay, as it's a fairly small overrun, fairly terse, some leeway is usually given (I just checked with a clerk), and for extra clarity due to the matters in the case.

If it is unacceptably long though, let me know and I'll deal with it, probably by removing the applicable norms and the note above it describing the private evidence. I'd like to avoid the latter for the sake of communal transparency though.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your statement is fine with me. Thanks for letting us know. AGK 01:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

EEML clerking: request

In the course of the WP:EEML arbitration, user:Molobo was unblocked to participate in the case. The account was indef'd when Molobo claimed he had been hacked, and he was permitted to operate from a new account, user:MyMoloboaccount. That account however has not yet been re-blocked when the case closed some days ago.

Please can a clerk block MyMoloboaccount, thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Molobo account was indef blocked after hacking.My original block is till 31st of May, and not indefinite, which Skapperod didn't mention. While I do not intend to edit till 31st of May, feel free to lock my account till 31st of May if you feel its needed per administrative procedure. However contrary what might be read above I was not indefinitely blocked. The indef block was enforced after I lost control of the account due to hacking.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why it takes only minutes before Molobo showed up here?! Also, the conditional unblock that allowed Molobo to defend himself in the EEML case does not permit him to even be here. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Please AGF-this is an Arbcom talk page for clerks and arbitors, not a content page or content dispute.

I already have requested the Arbcom Clerk to reset my block till 31st of May here[18]. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Appears he is correct, the account should be blocked til 31 May 2010. I'll take care of it. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration clerks seeking interested users

We want you!

• Do you consider yourself a good communicator?
• Are you a motivated individual, who is willing to work varying hours?
• Do you enjoy doing thankless work (you are editing Wikipedia, so the answer is yes)?
• Are you interested in the inner workings for the Arbitration Committee?
• Do you want to wear a Fez?

If you answered yes to all the above questions, then Arbitration clerking is for you! And seeing as the clerk corp is currently in the process of vetting new candidates you are encouraged to apply. To do so, simply send us an email at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In this email, be sure to include your username, what you feel you have to offer the committee, and why you are applying for the position.

Please note: Non-administrators are encouraged to apply.

Tiptoety ^talk 07:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Request clerk attention

Could I ask a clerk to remove User:Abd's statement from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Climate Change? Abd is under an editing restriction prohibiting him from commenting on any disputes in which he is not directly and immediately involved. I brought this apparent violation up at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Abd, where Abd indicated that if I thought the statement was inappropriate I could remove it ([19]). To minimize confusion or disruption, I'm not eager to remove another editor's statement myself, so thought I would ask a clerk to do so based on my request and Abd's assent. MastCell ^Talk 01:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks MastCell - I've removed the statement and left Abd a note. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If Adb is not a named party, I see no need for him to comment and consider attempts to retro explain it wiki lawyering. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec, will read note after):Well, just to be clear: my assent refers to my personal response. If the statement is removed, I will not personally respond. Others might. It is not an agreement that removal is actually appropriate. If the statement is disruptive, it should be removed. If MastCell thinks that the statement *itself* is disruptive, my suggestion was that he could, himself, remove it. I think there is much fuss being made over very little. So far, however, the removal and the Arbitration Enforcement thread seem to be based almost entirely on an interpretation of the sanction, which is unclear on this point; I'm already involved in the topic and the situation. The word "directly and immediately" isn't in the remedy. Rather, there is language "originating party," which, in context, probably does not refer to an ArbComm case. Indeed, I'm utterly unclear on the meaning of that sanction and its intention, I've been thinking of asking ArbComm for clarification. And this is totally nuts, way too much drama over a simple statement, so I'm out of here for today. --Abd (talk) 01:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's simple, if you're not a named party, you don't need to comment. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)