Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks

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

Noticeboard[edit]


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.

Case request management[edit]

Liz, Thryduulf: Re Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Richerman, the hat is not good:

  • First of all, hats anywhere should be signed per WP:SIGNHAT.
  • Clearly it is beneficial to maintain decorum; however the page itself, the top (pink box) clearly says "Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove, refactor, or move inappropriate material, without warning or notice." (emphasis mine). Nothing about hatting, unless ya'll want to wikilawyer hatting is refactoring.
  • Hats, rather than de-escalate a discussion, more effectively act as a giant neon sign Click here for drama!
  • In addition, by placing a hat rather than a simple, quiet removal, you're calling out the editor, especially when a non-neutral pejorative summary "Soapboxing" is used.

Therefore, please simply remove any inappropriate material, including the current hat and its contents. NE Ent 00:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I was carrying out a clerk action, after a request on the clerks' email list. If it wasn't me, it would have been another clerk who carried out the hatting. In the future, I will indicate in the edit summary that it is a clerk action on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@NE Ent: fixed. Thryduulf (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • On Wikipedia you do not need to follow orders. NE ent gives sound advice. My advice is that before refactoring anybody else's comment you tell them what the problem is and politely ask them to refactor it themselves. This is more civil and had the beneficial effects of teaching civility and avoiding conflict. Jehochman Talk 02:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Clarification noted: And - given that I have not received a response at Liz's talk to my request here, I have several points and questions:
  1. Has my request been brought forward to the clerks and/or arb mailing list?
  2. If so, has it been declined?
  3. I do feel that terminology such as"EC Fan Club (aka The Cult of Corbett)", "a shill for Corbett", and "incessant whining" is degrading, insulting, and disrespectful. Coupled with "EC apparently cannot control his impulses", and "who have so thoroughly frightened everyone, including most admins, into submission", which make accusations and cast aspersions - I believe it would be prudent (and fair) to modify this statement. If there are to be modifications beyond the "word limit", I think it only just, reasonable, and objective to view ALL sides.
Thank you, and Regards, — Ched :  ?  15:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, Ched, I just saw your message when this page came up on my Watchlist and I've responded to you here. Liz Read! Talk! 20:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Ent. Hatted sections are always a priority to investigate, and a great time saver. I also agree with Ched that the tone of the comment, even for an ArbCom page, veers well into WP:UNCIVIL territory. I would not have objected to a revert and request to reword here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC).

Notification[edit]

If a clerk (or anyone else) moves, blanks or edits an editors contribution to a case, would it not be basic courtesy to notify said editor? Can this be added to the appropriate procedures to ensure that it is done? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: You're right, and I do apologize for not following this in the past sometimes. I usually do it as a matter of course, but it is sometimes forgotten because of something else popping up or something. I don't think a procedure change would be helpful here; we don't actually refer to the procedures every single time a clerk action is taken. I will, however, send a quick reminder to the clerks-l list. Would that be fine?
Also, this discussion should actually be at WT:AC/C, not here. Objections to moving it? L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 13:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
L235@ Accepted, and thank you. My concern is that people may have wished to repost something different, or object to the removal. As this case is moving very fast (by arbcom standards) they will have missed that chance. Where (if anywhere) is the appropriate procedure? A reminder to the clerks-l might be useful. Moved. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/All[edit]

This page has a very useful A-Z index created by User:Nyttend. Sadly it is a) out of date and ii) has many red links. Is this something clerks could curate? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC).

Glad you've found it useful. I created it upon finding that it was simply rather difficult to find cases without a lot of work, unless you knew when the case had been decided. At least with some redlinks, the problem is that the naming convention got changed; "WLU-Mystar" is a link to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WLU-Mystar, but the case actually uses the old convention of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar; I did my best to account for the convention change, but obviously I messed up with a bunch of them. I'm pretty sure that it was up-to-date when I created it ten months ago, so updating should involve just adding the few additional cases since that time. Nyttend (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the list is up-to-date. What closed case do you believe is missing? Liz Read! Talk! 16:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
In the A-Z list anything that happened after 31 January 2015. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC).
All the redlinked ones, this oneNE Ent 01:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Case summary on Alva ANI please?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Thanks everyone for participation, but this is the wrong venue to be even discussing this topic. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 05:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Media are monitoring this case, and the conversation that Jimmy prompted. I noted on ANI that the section is way too long, confusing, and ad hominem, and that it needs a case summary. If you agree, could you please recap the alleged facts vs the pertinent rules? - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@LeoRomero: I'm not certain what you want the arbitration clerks to do. All we do is clerk arbitration cases; as far as I can tell, this is far, far outside our remit. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi @L235: Thanks for such a prompt response; I know you guys do superhuman work, and didn't expect that. So now I am morally obliged to respond promptly in return. (gee) Thanks, Superhuman.

Trying to get a speedy resolution of this controversial case, I read dozens (no hyperbole) of admin pages on who's supposed to do what, and Clerks is the closest I got.

Re far, far outside: I read the top of Remit to mean that "organising and tidying Arbitration cases and request pages" applied to WP:ANI. I now see further down that it applies specifically to WP:ARB/R, which I guess is what you mean by "arbitration".

I am nonetheless concerned that the process is taking too long. If @Edwardpatrickalva: et al are correct in saying that he did not do what @KirkCliff2: et al say/imply he did, I think Wikipedia leadership (you all) should act quickly to say so. Conversely, if the accusers are correct, they too should be spared further abuse. Justice delayed ... and under media scrutiny. Are there any admins whose voluntary work includes preparing case summaries on ANI? I'd summarize the case myself, but am not qualified to do so in a timely manner. I will though, if there's no one else.

Thanks again, truly; LeoRomero (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE DISREGARD I posted a draft case summary here LeoRomero (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

O_O does this mean I can go back to lingering around ANI? KirkCliff2 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

ArbCom clerk recruiting[edit]

I'm interested in becoming an ArbCom clerk and I was referred here by Liz. Liz let me know that the Arbitration Committee usually only recruits 2 clerks yearly, and that we currently have 5 trainee clerks. I just wanted to let you guys know that I'm interested in becoming a clerk and ask to be considered whenever it's feasible to. Thanks! CatcherStorm talk 12:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, CatcherStorm. First, I think you misunderstood me, I meant that the clerks team usually puts out recruiting calls twice a year, we train more than 2 clerks each year. For example, we have 5 trainee clerks and will have only 3 regular clerks now that Callanecc is leaving to become an arbitrator.
Your offer has been noted and discussed on the clerks-l email list and the consensus is that the clerks team has enough trainees right now. We appreciate your interest and please keep on making good contributions to Wikipedia! We will probably be doing some recruiting for trainees in spring 2016 so keep an eye on the arbitration noticeboard and WP:AN. Thank you again for your offer and have a good year. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

AE2 open case banner[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2 still has that blue banner which reads This case is currently open, so no changes may be made to this page, and unauthorised edits may be reverted. It was closed on 25 December 2015. Mz7 (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thanks for the note, I've now removed it. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Banned editors[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Enacting_bans_and_editing_restrictions when ya'll place the ban notice on a user place, please add the notice, rather than replacing the user page. NE Ent 14:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@NE Ent: the tradition was to replace the contents of userpages with the template. There was a small amount of movement in the other direction in the last few years but not enough to sway the consensus. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
There was: see Wikipedia:Banning policy#User pages and Wikipedia talk:Banning policy/Archive 6#User pages -- in any event, the committee's own procedures say that, so ya'll ought to either a) follow them, or b) change them. NE Ent 01:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The policy you link to is an ambiguous statement. In my memory, the only time that blanking and replacing caused issues is when someone's fanclub has a bee in their bonnet about it. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Some context. I was unaware there was an Official Procedure about it*, but my personal preference is for adding rather than replacing - the tags exist to be informational, and no additional information is provided by blanking the page. See also this recent TfD on a related template ({{BannedMeansBanned}}) for AFAIK the most recent, albeit small, related community discussion. * Who am I kidding? Wikipedians have probably codified a procedure somewhere for how to fart ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Just to note that this is what we do with sock puppets, we blank their userpage and add the template. Doug Weller talk 12:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but that seems to be another case of "we do it that way because that's the way it's done". There's not really any evidence that blanking or not blanking makes any difference in deterring socking/evasion, bluelinked WP:DENY notwithstanding. In any event, there's no reason we have to do the same with sock accounts as with the primary accounts of banned editors. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh, that style of argument looks fun, Guerillero. Here, let me try: The only time that blanking and replacing is necessary or useful is when someone wants to rub the editors nose in it, in order to feel smug and superior. Yeah, you're right, that is significantly more exciting than rational discourse. I suggest everyone on Wikipedia switch to this style of arguement right away! Oh, wait... --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the more low-key the better. It did make me wonder about a page editnotice for the user and talk pages rather than a template actually..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, that's an interesting idea. Neatly separates the 'we need to tell you the circumstances before you try to communicate with this person' function from the 'hey everybody, this guy's in the naughty corner!' function. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Old case names[edit]

Although the naming convention for cases was changed several years ago, the older cases are still at the previous naming convention; that's why we have to have two separate search screens at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index, for example. I've therefore proposed that all the old-named case pages be bot-moved to the new naming convention (for example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/GreekWarrior would be moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GreekWarrior), with the proposal at WP:VP/Pr#Arbitration case names. Your input would be appreciated, along with suitable advertising anywhere else. Nyttend (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

  • @Nyttend: I've pinged clerks-l about this. Although I've got no objections right now, please be aware that as case pages are under the clerks' (and, of course, the Committee's) remit, the consent of the clerks or the Committee is required for the move. Cheers, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Seems like a good idea! This probably goes without saying, but redirects from the old pages should be retained. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    Also, worth making sure than any shortcuts still work. I suspect that any double redirects created will be fixed by one of the usual bots, but it's worth checking. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    @Nyttend: As you realize I am sure, there were several hundred cases before the naming convention was changed. It's not for me to prioritize someone else's time, and I know that bots can do most wondrous things, but I expect that changing all the names and conforming all the redirects and shortcuts and everything else will be a lot of work. And I'm not convinced that the work would yield an especially large reward given that the old-style names were last used about seven years ago. (Or maybe I'm just trying to reserve the old-style names because I liked that citation format much better. I found it much more direct to refer someone to "see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/X" as opposed to "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/X". But I digress.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    This is actually useful for search purposes as Nyttend points out, and as long as the original case names match the pattern, really shouldn't be that much work. Since the move page and leave a redirect functionality is built into the mediawiki software (see mw:Help:Moving a page), it's fairly low risk. NE Ent 00:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
    Of course, Newyorkbrad, you could suggest that the Committee return to the old naming convention and have the "new" convention pages renamed; I too find the old names better and simpler. See the efforts of Uncle G's major work 'bot, which moved virtually all of the VFD pages several years ago; it was considered worth it, even though the pages had to be moved to different places (some went to AFD, some to MFD), while here, the bot could use Special:Allpages and move all non-redirect pages from WP:RFA/X to WP:A/R/C/X, and then check each page's redirects to fix the double redirects. I'm not imagining other work, and not imagining anything that couldn't be automated; is there something I'm missing? Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The VFD to AFD move from some years ago was obviously worthwhile. Over at VPP it's been observed there are 1,611 old-style arb cases that would need to be moved. Moving the pages will automatically leave a redirect behind. Per Nyttend there might not be any manual fixup needed except for shortcuts. Still sounds like a good idea. If the arbs and clerks don't object, how about someone doing a trial move of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/GreekWarrior to the proposed new location to be sure nothing funny happens. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Desysops of edit filter managers[edit]

There is discussion at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter about whether editors who hold the edit filter manager right should lose this if they are desysopped in some or all circumstances, either automatically or after a review. This discussion is far from concluded, but as a suggestion to the clerks, it would be useful for a note to be posted at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard (WP:EFN) in the event that arbcom desysops someone who holds the edit filter manager right, particularly if the committee does not also direct the right be removed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Without objection, I'll put this in our procedures. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
And Yes check.svg Done. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Pay attention please[edit]

Would somebody please remove this gratuitous personal attack? If such a thing happened, the editor should provide a link. Otherwise they should not post such remarks. Jehochman Talk 22:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jehochman: The statement was sourced until a few moments ago when the edit that sourced it was removed due to it being in the wrong place. I have invited the editor in question to repost in the correct location. Amortias (T)(C) 22:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you should keep the calumny assertion and the evidence together? Either both stay or both go. Jehochman Talk 22:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Am planning on letting the editor in question re-add to their section. If its not done within a reasonable time-scale then we can see about representing the evidence. The original editor in question is within their remit to not include it so if the statement inst sourced I will aim to remove it (or request another clerk or arbitrator does so if I'm unable to). Amortias (T)(C) 22:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jehochman: Noted that you have re-added the link. Just an FYI that it would be better to directly request it is added (as you have done) and allow for a clerk to action rather than edit another users statement directly (which is what I had removed in the first instance). I had received responses from the other editors and was planning on actioning a fix shortly. Have to apply the rules on where things go equally to all involved and what not. Amortias (T)(C) 22:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "re-added". I never saw that the link was removed and can't imagine why anybody would remove an informative link. As a curious observer I wanted to know if the statement was true or not, and I found the link. I posted it for the convenience of others. It would be silly to put the link elsewhere on the page where nobody would see it. But please do feel free to refactor the page however you like according to whatever rules you are supposed to apply. Jehochman Talk 23:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Added back in may have been a better choice of words perhaps. Removed in this action[1]. Am happy to leave it as is for now unless anyone else objects. Amortias (T)(C) 23:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much. It's a rather odd situation, I admit. The fact of the previous desysopping is quite important. It seems very much like the case should be accepted on that ground. Jehochman Talk 23:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Cla68 et. al. -- finding out whether an editor has been desysoped is actually fairly easy, as bureaucrats are pretty good at logging these things: [2]. A good faith question is not a personal attack, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so the proper clerk response to an editor making an "unauthorized" edit is to thank them (or pretend to ignore it) if it makes sense and revert if doesn't. NE Ent 02:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions logged in the wrong place[edit]

There has been a discussion at User talk:Drmies/Archive 96#The labyrinth. Per the motion from Jan 2015 creating the DSLOG there should not be any sanctions from the period 2010-2014 still visible in the log at the bottom of WP:ARBPIA, but there are. It seems people continue to log bans and blocks in the pre-DSLOG locations. Most likely a clerk is the best person to relocate all these bans. The DSLOG does not contain notifications or alerts so those remain in the cases, from the beginning through May 2014. User:Callanecc said he would post something to the clerks' list so perhaps this is already being addressed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Old arbitration request[edit]

Can someone remove this seemingly old arbitration case request at whatever time is deemed appropriate? Thanks. isaacl (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The request has been removed. isaacl (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Kharkiv07 appointed as a full clerk[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Kharkiv07 (talk · contribs) is appointed a full clerk.

We also express our thanks and gratitude to all of the arbitration clerks for their diligent assistance with the arbitration process. The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Kharkiv07 appointed as a full clerk

Data request[edit]

Could a clerk provide me the page history (edits and deletion(s) ) of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes? This would be to support an evidence in the corresponding case. NE Ent 22:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi NE. As I mentioned on the case request, we'll do this when the case is opened. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Voting question(s)[edit]

In the context of something like Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Infoboxes:_Arbitrator_views_and_discussion - what does "abstain" mean? How it is counted, and how does it differ from "recuse"? NE Ent 22:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

  • While I can't speak for Arbitrators, my understanding is that recusal equates to removing oneself from the proceeding entirely for cause (conflict of interest, strong bias, past history, etc.), thus being "ineligible to vote", while abstaining is recognizing an Arbritrator's eligibility to vote and comment, but refusal to "pick a side" between support and oppose, either because they're undecided (as DQ says is her case), or for some other reason that their "abstain" vote probably explains. As for how they are counted, I'll leave it to the clerks to explain how they work.  · Salvidrim! ·  23:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Salvidrim is right; essentially recusal is when an someone, for whatever reason, removes themselves from the question entirely; think of it as they're giving up all authority they have as an Arbitrator on the matter. An abstention, on the other hand, is simply not voting on something, but maintain all the rights of the position, including discussing and the possibility of voting later. When it comes to a vote; abstentions, recusals, and Arbitrators not even voting all have the same weight: none. Kharkiv07 (T) 23:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Do any of abstain, recuse, or not voting affect the total number of arbitrators considered active (and thereby affecting the number of votes required for a majority)? NE Ent 00:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes, I have an example here:
For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators, so 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 3 who are inactive and 2 who have abstained or recused, so 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
The template doesn't actually distinguish between an abstain or a recusal, and an inactive vote doesn't make a difference. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
      • (e/c) Inactive and recused arbs as well as arbs who have abstained aren't counted as being active for that motion/case (and therefore reduce the number of votes needed for a majority). Arbs who just haven't voted are still considered to be active (so are counted in majority calculations). Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Yeah that's what I was getting at, that's why it makes a difference if Arbs are marked inactive or simply vanish. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Clerks' script writer appointments[edit]

Pursuant to this announcement, the arbitration clerks appoint the following editors as the clerks' script developers:

Future announcements and coordination will occur at the clerks' noticeboard. The clerks would like to thank the script developers in advance. Any editor interested in assisting with automation, as described in this announcement, is welcome to email the clerk team at clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

For the Clerks of the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Clerks' script writer appointments