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).

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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  Done. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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 (talk • contribs • logs) 00:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

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. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	8
2–3	7
4–5	6

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

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 (talk • contribs • logs) 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)
        • We chase those up. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

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

• Fred Gandt (talk · contribs)
• Σ (talk · contribs)

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-llists.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

I just filed a case request against The Rambling Man. However, I can't notify him on his talk page because he banned me from it some time ago. Can a clerk do it please? Thanks. Banedon (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done [3] Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

There must be other editors who had experiences with TRM. Since neither Banedon nor I can "canvass", perhaps clerks can notify those who may be not aware of the case request. George Ho (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

George Ho this isn't a "gang up on TRM" session. There is no need to notify everyone who has had any sort of interaction, positive or negative, with him in the past. Drop the stick. Let it go. I don't know how much clearer I can make this. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Clerks, apologies made a complete mess upof my statement in this case. will try to correct. If I cannot all assistance appriciated.Edmund Patrick – confer 08:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

done I believe, thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 08:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I condensed and eliminated my statements to around 600-650 words. Is this acceptable, or more should be condensed? --George Ho (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Esoglou, now indef banned, made probably a motion or request at the case about Christianity and sexuality. However, he put it under Proposals. I moved it to the very bottom because he didn't make a proposal. Rather it looked like a motion or request, so it should be moved to the very top, "Motions and requests by the parties". George Ho (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to make any changes to that page since that case closed 18 months ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that the Michael Hardy case has been left out of the case archives. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Added now. Miniapolis 15:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Clerks,

There are two cases with similar titles which caused confusion in a recent AE thread.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe, short cut WP:ARBEE, explicit scope Russia-Estonia conflict

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes, no shortcut, no statement as to scope

Since both titles contain "Eastern Europe" but lack specific distinguishing modifiers, I'd like to suggest you take some clerk-ish action to disambiguate them better. Yes, there's a hatnote on ARBEE, but the best way to do this is via the case name and short cuts. The confusion in these case names came to my attention in a recent AE thread... though the confusion does not appear to have played a significant role in the outcome of the case (which is still pending but nearing closure).

Reasonable minds might disagree if action is really warranted here. I don't edit this area myself, just thought clarification might reduce the risk of future confusion for others. Thanks for your attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

An informal poll of the committee and clerks thinks they're probably fine as is unless there are big problems with the current wording; in particular, renaming cases is a hassle and something there wasn't support for. Thanks for the inquiry, though. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

No prob, thanks for checking NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

On the close message for cases part of the statement reads This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched. The verbiage is rather confusing, as it can be read either "you are not allowed to watch this page" or "the people concerned with this page won't be watching it further". Would it be better to either change "may" to "might", or append "by those involved in the case"? Thanks for the thankless work you guys do. Primefac (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Is article Smith & Wesson M&P15 within scope of current areas of conflict WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control or WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2? If so, request placement of a talk page alert template regarding the availability of discretionary sanctions. A contentious RfC is currently open. Thank you. 35.167.121.108 (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)— 35.167.121.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• ... and the proxy-using IP-hopper who posted the message above can't do it themself since the talk page has been protected to prevent further disruption from them. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

SO, I posted an request for clarification today that turns out to be based on a combination of bad information and incorrect assumptions. The user that would be effected also pretty much does not want anything to do with it. I didn't think I should just remove it since it has replies, but perhaps a clerk could do so? The request is the Doncram one at the bottom of ARCA. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. All the best, Miniapolis 13:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I was one of the first draft of arbitration clerks and as part of my duties in 2006 I created a long-disused template which is taking a long time dying. I know how busy a clerk's Wikipedia life is, but I think it might be helpful to get the current clerks' opinions on this.

In 2006 my approach would have been to clean up our own mess: delete obsolete templates and clean up the references (by transclusion, annotation, etc) and move on. In the unlikely event such an ethic persists, let some kind clerk please just do it. --TS 20:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey there. Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism was changed to Homosexuality and the Catholic Church per result at Talk:Homosexuality and the Catholic Church/Archive 6#Requested move 18 April 2017. Therefore, multiple links at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence#Evidence presented by Callanecc, including "history offset" ones (e.g. [4]), are broken. Can the links at that section be changed from Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism to Homosexuality_and_the_Catholic_Church, so the links are accessible, fixed, or something? --George Ho (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The final decision of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific needs a bit of clean up. In particular: the placeholder sections labelled "Template" need to be removed, and the sections headers "Principles", "Findings of fact", "Remedies", and "Enforcement" are all unnecessarily repeated a second time. Additionally, the "Implementation notes" and vote on the motion to close are usually not repeated on the main case page, since they are on the /Proposed decision subpage, so they should be removed too. Mz7 (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Mz7 (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there some reason that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment request: Motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments (January 2015) is not showing up in the open proceedings list, e.g. at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Current? Did I mis-format it or something? I would have expected commentary by now, but people probably aren't seeing that this even exists.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Added to WP:A/C. Miniapolis 20:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the best place I could think of to directly ask a question to clerks, sorry if it's out-of-process. The case request concerning me (well, mostly me it seems) appears to be overdue to be opened to a full case. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Deciding of requests, it has been over 24hours since the accept tally represents a majority of active non-recused Arbs (7 8 out of 12, counting 2 inactives and one recused). Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something (if so, please do let me know)? Perhaps there are some private discussions amongst Arbs about naming, duration and other details of the case to be opened so apologies if I'm appearing impatient. It's just that some Arbs have voiced an interest in speeding the case up and there haven't been new comments in ~36hours.... and I'm sure I'm not the only one who would rather see this wrapped up before the year ends. ;) Thanks in advance, Clerks! Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

{{ARPrelim}} has been nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found here (though it might be relisted in the next day or two, but just follow the links) relisted, link updated. Your input is requested, especially as there has been a motion to either merge it with {{ARA}} or delete it outright. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm a lurker on this case. I don't want to scare people with a section entitled "Comments by Graham87" for such minor issues on the proposed decision talk page, so here goes ... in the section "Purpose of Wikipedia", "cameraderie" should be "camaraderie" and in the section "Infobox discussions have been difficult", "has lead to" should be "has led to". Graham87 13:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Graham87:  Done. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Please close my clarification request at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Niteshift36.

Reason: Negative comments from a participating admin have disrupted the matter. Cinteotl (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Discretionary sanctions appeals update, the vote has stood at 1-7 for about 5-6 days now. According to the top of the section, 6 votes are a majority, so I believe the motion has failed. If a passing clerk has time, I think the discussion can be archived now. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7: The clerks have brought this up multiple times with the Committee over the last week, but we have not been authorized to close the discussion. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, all right. Thanks for checking. Mz7 (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Is anyone around to update this? There's been a new case request open for over a day now, and people are starting to ask why it's not listed in the template. Thanks, ansh666 20:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I am considering writing a request, but I would like some tips on how to make it more convincing. Any suggestions? Talatastan (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I've been noticing mangled markup in the "This case is currently open ..." banners. Whatever template or sandbox you all use to generate those needs some corrections.

• There's no such thing as "</br>"; it's <br />.
• The <center> element hasn't existed in HTML since HTML 4, and even then it was deprecated. The correct HTML5 markup is <div style="text-align: center;"> ... </div> for the case in question.

Using the bad markup triggers the invalid-tags "lint" filters for cleanup toward migration to complaint HTML5; boogers the syntax highlighting on the page (in at least one of the available highlighters for the editing window); and isn't guaranteed to be interpreted consistently across browsers.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Thanks for pointing this out! Fixed. There's a lot of this kind of stuff – both formal html errors and best practice problems – on arbitration pages, but we really haven't been paid enough to deal with it . (It really is on my to-do list, though, and there's a lot of stuff we've already cleaned up in the last few years.) Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

No prollem. I go after the lint where I see it. Today ArbCom templates, yesterday someone's sig with mis-nested tags. PS: One can actually use a span for the div, up there, but it would also have to have display: inline-block;, so it's not worth it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Someone on IRC pointed out that there is an error on the page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop that is causing all of the text on the page to have a strikethrough. Specifically, the following text needs to be replaced:

====<s>Scope excluded The Rambling Man's pre-2016 actions====
The scope of this case was too limited and did not extend to past actions by The Rambling Man before the January 2016 motion.</s>

The above text should be replaced with the following to ensure that the <s> is closed properly in the table of contents.

====<s>Scope excluded The Rambling Man's pre-2016 actions</s>====
<s>The scope of this case was too limited and did not extend to past actions by The Rambling Man before the January 2016 motion.</s>

I tested this via the "View preview" button, and it appears to work. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and fixed this minor technical error. SQL^{Query me!} 01:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @SQL: I don't see an issue with this being fixed --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is still a hanging

<s>

in that section now. I don't want to try to guess at arbcom's intentions there - so I left it be. SQL^{Query me!} 01:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@L235: can you take a look? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I assumed the intent was to strikeout both the section header and the sentence below it, which is why I thought there should be an extra <s> added in. Mz7 (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fine to leave it as it is. It's the workshop of a closed case – ArbCom isn't gonna be using it to make decisions anymore Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

A headsup that I've posted a note at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Proposed decision to query the occasional activity of BU Rob, and ask how the votes on the remedy he became momentarily active on (to oppose it) are going to compute. Theoretically, this is for the clerks, but since I also want the arbs to see my opinion about it, I elected to take it there. Please answer there. Bishonen | talk 08:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC).

Just like I did for the SPI clerks, I made a userbox ({{User wikipedia/Arbitration clerk}}) and top icon ({{Arbitration clerk topicon}}) for the ArbCom clerks. funplussmart (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The page "Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/etc" includes the following note:

"*You must inform all parties that they have been named in this request using {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}"

What does "{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}" mean and how does it work? Santamoly (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Santamoly: The text you refer to is saying that to notify parties of an ARCA request, you would substitute the {{Arbitration CA notice}} template, calling the section title as the first parameter. Please see Help:Template for more information. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it necessary to use this device to notify the other persons? Can I not simply put a note on their Talk Page? The phrasing in the above example seems pretty complicated; in fact I have no idea what it's saying or what it does, even after reading the notes you suggested. Santamoly (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

If you can't figure it out, leave them a talk page note and say that you can't figure it out in the ARCA. One of us will handle the rest. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [5]. 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)

Refusal to reopen ANi thread, threat of a block

When User:MrX requssted a reopen of the GiantSnowman ANi thread from User:Bbb23 he was mislead about what GS agreed, told an ArbComm case was a waste of time, told by GS he felt harassed, and threatened with a block by another Admin. Arbs should read the whole tread for context [6]

Kindly post the above to the Evidence page. Also I note I feel mislead by several Clerks who rolled out a ever increasing restriction against me that is totally inconsistent with how participating Admins have been treated in this case. Legacypac (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Posted, as it seems yet again that those quickly imposing your restriction are rather slow in following their part of the deal. Fram (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Fram, please let the clerks do their job. Whether you are happy with the speed that the clerks are working at is irrelevant. It's not a deal, it's a restriction and one that was made due to Legacypac not being willing to follow the clerks directions. If Legacypac wishes to appeal the restriction, he can - here or by email. Worm^TT(talk) 10:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac is not posting to the pages he is restricted from, he is posting here, as required. If you want to restrict me, please indicate which policy I'm violating by posting his comments. You state "please let the clerks do their job". Can you perhaps indicate how my posts hinders the clerks in doing their job? They can still review Legacypacs posts, they can remove them from the evidence page (workshop, whatever) if they are problematic, and they can explain why they are problematic (i.e. more problematic than some other comments by other editors which are left alone at the evidence page). I am not interfering with any edits by clerks, I have not undone, reverted, rollbacked them, or otherwise acting against them. All I see is arbs and clerks being very swift when it comes to acting against Legacypac, or e.g. here against me (less than 15 minutes!!), but the same arbs and clerks being very slow when it comes to act otherwise (more than two days without any action with the previous post by Legacypac, days without any comment about the much more dubious and widely condemned role of AGK for example).

The actions by arbs and clerks in this case, and your comment here, are only confirming the belief some people hav (and which plays a role in this case) that there are too many people with advanced tools or roles more interested in looking out for their own than in dealing with things even-handedly and fairly. Fram (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

See also how the previous submission by Legacypac stayed here for 2 days without any response, but when I posted it a response followed in 45 minutes. The only logical conclusion is that you (clerks plus arbs) are deliberately ignoring Legacypac's posts here, which is terrible. Fram (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac has been restricted from posting in the case unless it has been approved by a clerk. He was meant to post those requests to the much more frequented clerks mailing list, but pointed out that he disagreed with email. As such, I've pointed him here - there is no rush for his evidence to be posted - it will all get reviewed by arbs at the end of the case, but it does need to be reviewed by a clerk because that is his restriction. I'm sorry that you're unhappy with the state of play, but as I've said Legacypac - not you - can appeal that. Worm^TT(talk) 10:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

That's interesting. When was this new restriction implemented and when was LP informed of it? Because that restriction is quite different from the one stated on his talkpage.84.219.252.47 (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

(ec)Legacypac hasn't violated that stupid restriction. Thanks to them posting here, at least now we have clear evidence of them being ignored. "there is no rush for his evidence to be posted - it will all get reviewed by arbs at the end of the case". Then why do we even have a workshop page? (Never mind that we have a drafting arb prejudicing the case rather severely in multiple ways already, when the evidence phase is still open).

Is there are problem with the actual evidence I posted to the evidence page on behalf of Legacypac? You now have had more than 3 days to examine the first batch they posted, so I guess a verdict on it should be possible. Nothing? Fine, then what are you complaining about? Is there really nothing more urgent or problematic with this case than my posts of these small bits of evidence after they languished here for hours and days? Really? Fram (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:VOLUNTEER (even clerks :-)). We are not biased against LP, and they can now post here. All the best, Miniapolis 20:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course, but you (plural) can't have it both ways: on the one hand not doing something because you are volunteers (fine), but on the other hand not allowing anyone else to do it because it is your job ("please let the clerks do their job."). Fram (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Fram, Clerks are tasked with managing the case pages, but if other editors see something that needs doing, then in most circumstances no one will complain. That's not what's happening here, you were posting on behalf of a restricted contributor with bad faith comments about him being ignored. There was no urgency - evidence can be rebutted in the workshop (in the analysis of evidence section) and clerks can certainly add it to the evidence page after the closure date because it was submitted beforehand. I know this doesn't match the rest of Wikipedia, Arbcom's procedures are bureaucratic slow and regularly infuriating, but it does so to allow cooler heads to prevail. Worm^TT(talk) 09:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

He doesn't get a response here for two days, but my post gets a response 45 minutes later. The second time, he doesn't get a response here for 10 hours, but my post gets a response 15 minutes later. I don't think my comments were "bad faith comments". You still haven't shown any problem with my posting his evidence apart from not following some unwritten burocracy rule, so my proxying was perfectly acceptable under our policies. There was no "urgency" apart from people getting the strong impression that an editor (worse, the actual filing party of the case) was being silenced, ignored, muzzled, sidelined. That you can add evidence after the evidence phase has closed is hardly a reason not to add the evidence earlier, or a reason why I shouldn't have added it. Then again, not much about this case can surprise me anymore. Fram (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Given the "we will get to your evidence someday" response from the clerks and given an IP as posted their emailed evidence was ignored, my confidence in this process is at an all time low. How am I supposed to participate in the workshop discussion where there are so many sections? Will the clerks post my comments in a timely manner and in the correct place? Legacypac (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, if you ping me I should be able to get to it promptly. Bradv🍁 22:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Justement la question de savoir que vous êtes toujours intéressé à faire des recherches dans les modérateurs de recherches pour connaitre les désagrément occasionnés sur des projets de communication via l.intercommunate:la territorialisation; régionalisation;la départementalisation au niveau de coopération internale déconcentrée etdecentree :la subsidiarité énoncé par le code des collectivités locales(finance et gouvernance locale) Momefzo (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: as the only french speaking clerk can you take a look at this? I'm not convinced google translate is making sense. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 15:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

It does not really make a lot of sense; a question about interest in research in disputes followed by a list of gobbledegook supposed topics. The section title is "Business law via the interconnection". isaacl (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Given that the user is globally locked and there is not much sense to what they have said, I'm not going to reply. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

(1) In Re: Clarification request: Eastern Europe and Balkans discretionary sanctions scope, As of 17 February 2019, the Motion regarding this matter has passed with Five votes since AGK switched their vote.

(2) Template:ArbComOpenTasks/ClarificationAmendment should be updated to include Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, MattLongCT. We normally let motions sit for 24 hours to make sure that people don't want to change their votes. The template has been updated. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Guerillero, gotcha; Many thanks! ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 22:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This [7] isn't permissible. I've reverted it, but the clerks should probably be doing that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alex Shih (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alex Shih (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. Please prepend {{pp-template|small=yes}} to the start of each of the pages. Both are currently template-protected, but neither is tagged (see protection logs 96943510 and 96943476) Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, you should leave message on clerks noticeboard or clerk talk page, not here Hhkohh (talk) 06:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Cameron11598 and L235: Hhkohh (talk) 06:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: moved --DannyS712 (talk) 06:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712:  Done by L235 --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I emailed the Clerks-l mailing list 5 days ago, and I wanted to make sure that you got my message. The only reply I got was that my email "awaits moderator approval". Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, yes, we have received your message. You can expect a reply by email in the next day or two. Thank you! – bradv🍁 03:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: Thanks, just wanted to be sure. I thought it would tell me if the message was approved; I guess it doesn't --DannyS712 (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Notices like this one have just appeared on the talk pages of the current case. I am not aware of this ever being the rule on case talk pages. It certainly wasn't in the last case I was involved in, only about three months ago. So my questions would be:

• Is there a new rule, and if so was it discussed anywhere on-wiki?
• Won't this make discussion on talk pages fractured and hard to follow?

Beeblebrox (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, this has been used before, most recently at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Proposed decision. This rule is being implemented in this case in an attempt to reduce unproductive back-and-forth discussions and help maintain order on the talk pages. I added the note at the direction of the arbitrators, but I'm sure it can be revisited if it proves to be ineffective or inefficient. – bradv🍁 04:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Just an fyi: case 2015-8 is the first instance of the sectioning rule that I recall (on the evidence and workshop talk pages), but I haven't always followed arbitration cases so don't know if there are earlier instances. isaacl (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, it just struck me as odd since I hadn't seen it before and the talk page didn't seem particularly crazy, but I suppose the committee has its reasons. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Special:Diff/877614768 added an extraneous "<" character, still present at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather: Interaction bans taken over (alternate), that I believe should be removed. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:LIGHTBULB. *Sigh* ∯WBG^converse 08:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: The warning at the top of the case says Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric, for WP:IAR :-). All the best, Miniapolis 13:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The recent mass message that was sent skipped 11 users due to opting out of mass messaging, but they should likely still be notified. See the affected user list here. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. At Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Arbitration discretionary sanctions motion: community comments invited, can the link be updated to reflect that the discussion is no longer open (Archived discussion at:) - Special:Permalink/848955466#Community comments is where the discussion was before it was removed. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that this is a minor change. There are at least 7 other cases where we could change it to archived at, and it doesn't seem like it's a big deal to go back through and change all of them. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: So are you saying I should just do it myself? Because as a non-clerk I don't think that would be right, and I'd prefer not to. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying the opposite actually. There are probably over 100 instances over all archive pages. Anyone digging that deep knows that the discussion would be archived. Basically, it's too cosmetic to worry clerk time over. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: oh, thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Clerks, to follow up on the discussion started at WP:BN (permalink): Will you please review the current clerking procedures regarding community notifications of edit filter managers that are also admins, should a desysoping action be triggered by the arbitration committee? I'm not sure if this was just missed following last motion, or if the procedures are a bit fuzzy on this (as it is listed in the "Enacting bans and editing restrictions" heading). I believe the intent of the last discussions that led to this being established apply to any desysoping activity where the committee has not specifically addressed removal or non-removal of edit-filter-manager access. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The clerk procedures specify that If the desysopped editor has self-granted edit filter manager rights, post a note to the edit filter noticeboard for review, which was added in 2016. In this case, the EFM permission was removed by an uninvolved administrator within an hour of the motion, before any clerks had enacted this procedure. – bradv🍁 04:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response @Bradv:, so do you expect this one notice would have been generated eventually, even though it appears all of the other related notices had already been done? @AGK:, it looks like you were doing the "notifications" - did you have this queued and were holding it off for some reason? Without more information my assumption is that this lack of notification was just a very minor oversight as it is an unusual one, and that by discussing it now it could be better in the future. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 13:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Internal review processes make it likely that this notice would have been delivered by a clerk at some point, had it not been mooted by intervening events. Also, of course, ArbCom desysoppings are the subject of significant community scrutiny and it would be unlikely that a missed notification would lead to long-term negative consequences, like an untrusted user retaining sensitive rights. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@L235: thanks for the note, I'm not looking to blame anyone or anything, just QA here - if there is a checklist missing an entry, or room for improvement with the bot job notification job just wanted to bring it up since someone mentioned it on the main talk page. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 13:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I like the idea of making checklists that we use – if we make them easy enough to use they can make the clerks' procedures a lot easier and modular while increasing cross-checking between clerks. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

See, [8] and [9] from a rumor standpoint the subsequent editing does not improve it, please act per policy. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Alanscottwalker: I'll talk to the committee about it, but in the future please do not redact statements in Arbitration Space yourself. This should be left to the clerks and committee members. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm? That's not what the policy says, as I think you know, it wants things handled as quickly and quietly as possible, at any rate it is now flagged, but I will try to not belabor the obvious policy meaning of unsourced rumor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Would the clerks look into whether the recent non-admin edits to this case page by Winged Blades of Godric are appropriate? They appear substantially correct (I didn't have the time to note my unblocking myself), and useful, but shouldn't any comments or notes on decisions be made only by clerks at ArbCom's direction? Sandstein 15:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:IAR. ∯WBG^converse 15:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Pending any clerk decision, I have dated the notice to avoid misunderstandings. Sandstein 16:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sandstein and Winged Blades of Godric: To the general point, case pages should be edited only by arbitrators and clerks, and log entries should be maintained by the enforcing admin. In this case, recording the block in the log entry, even if it is vacated, is appropriate. The changes to the motion are a little more complicated, as the later motion didn't actually amend the original sanction. I note that the later motion is now mentioned in the enforcement log, which is a suitable solution. – bradv🍁 13:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

After getting feedback from my fellow clerks, I've added notes to the remedies referring to the later motion mentioned above. I hope this helps provide the necessary clarity. – bradv🍁 14:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia:Editing restrictions § Placed by the Arbitration Committee also be updated to reflect the amended procedure? isaacl (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Which updated procedure are you referring to? If it's updating the sanctions, attempting to edit the page shows this editnotice: "Only arbitrators or clerks are permitted to edit this page. Non-arbitrators may use the talk page, or email the Arbitration Clerks at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org." Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Bradv updated the Interactions at GGTF remedies section to refer a later motion that modified the remedy. Can these notes also be added to the table on the editing restrictions page? Since the topic was already under discussion here I thought I would add the request here. isaacl (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not really an editing restriction though, it's a clarification of the process by which these restrictions should be enforced. – bradv🍁 12:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The table already contains the full text of the remedy, including its procedural steps; it's only missing the additional note you added. Given that the editing restrictions page is the prime spot to find out what restrictions are applicable to a given editor, I believe it would be helpful to include. isaacl (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Fine, I don't think it's worth spilling more ink over this. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

This comment should be in its own section (I also think it's rather unhelpful, but that is just my opinion). Thanks! –FlyingAce^✈hello 20:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a regular user and I need arbitration for something. Can anyone give me pointers on how to navigate this system? 173.24.39.178 (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Please see dispute resolution. The arbitration process is one of the last stages of dispute resolution, not the first. – bradv🍁 21:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I've seen Dispute Resolution; I have no idea what exactly it's asking of me, and furthermore the article in question has a *very long* history with this exact issue, is under some kind of protection specifically to exclude my content, and my edits are being reverted while citing policies that support them.

If I can't file an arbitration request over a long-standing dispute on an article, in which I am newly engaged and which has a current-issues series of edits going on, then I have no meaningful access to it and established users can do whatever they want even if they're wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.39.178 (talk) 21:23, September 14, 2019 (UTC)

Is this in regards to Richard Stallman? The best place to raise your concerns would be on the talk page, Talk:Richard Stallman. – bradv🍁 21:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This issue already has more than two thousand words on the Stallman talk page. The Stallman article is currently being aggressively edited to remove information concerning Stallman's current activities as documented in sources marked reliable. That article has been repeatedly edited, for a very long time, to remove similar information because it is unflattering.173.24.39.178 (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me like you just resurrected a three-year-old discussion and no one else has responded yet. Give it some time. Either way, the Arbitration Committee deals with editor conduct, not content, so it would be of little help here. – bradv🍁 21:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Well then, what precisely am I supposed to do if a given block of content keeps getting removed for personal reasons, e.g., that Wikipedia loves Stallman, as opposed to on the merits of the information being added concerning the most notable event Stallman's been a part of in years?173.24.39.178 (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

My advice is to present your argument calmly and rationally, with a few good reliable sources, and explain your proposal to the other editors. Articles are written by consensus, so you will need them to agree that your edits are improvements. Do your best to stay away from "one against many" situations, as they usually don't end well. – bradv🍁 22:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

No. 173.24.39.178 (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

After a full day going over this someone just decided to arbitrary annihilate the entire section because he doesn't like it. If only we had some kind of arbitrator who could figure out what was going on with contested articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.39.178 (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It is the conduct of editor 173.24.39.178 that appears suspicious. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/173.24.39.178&offset=&limit=500&target=173.24.39.178

Would one of you go through the final on the case page and compare the tallies with the PD, they do not appear to match - up. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, what are you seeing that doesn't match? – bradv🍁 00:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh nevermind I see it now. – bradv🍁 00:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, I believe I've fixed the count. – bradv🍁 00:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Please open the Fram resolution-ordered harassment RFC as a simple open-ended question like, "How should the movement address harassment?" I'm upset about how the T&S Office Consultation on Meta had a bunch of carefully constructed sub-questions on which I obviously spent too much time, and they didn't even include them. This whole thing reminds me of being asked at a Concord Coalition event whether I wanted to decrease some department's budget by 5%, keep it the same, or increase it by 5%, when I wanted to decrease it by 15%. Editors are capable of expressing their opinions without overly careful guidance. EllenCT (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Clerks, I know I'm in the wrong spot and I apologize. FYI, there is some discussion at Talk:Climate change about renaming climate change and later also renaming Global warming. (Full disclosure I am a supporter, at least of a variant of the proposal.) I don't think this would create any technical conflict with the wording of WP:ARBCC but it would be nice if someone associated with ARB process would comment. Is this the least bad place to ask? If not where else should I go? Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, this is not a problem. If the pages are moved the clerks can easily update the relevant arbitration pages as needed. – bradv🍁 03:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for such a speedy reply! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Not down to any specific instance, but sections are regularly made at WT:AC/N to try to raise items of general interest to the committee while it's really meant only for discussion announcements at WP:AC/N. Shouldn't such threads be summarily moved to WT:AC? Or has this become accepted practice? –xeno^talk 17:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Xeno, the notice at the top of the page reads This page is for discussion of formal announcements by the Committee, including clarification of the specifics of notices. I agree that some of the recent posts have deviated from that. I'll raise this issue with the committee on how these threads should be handled. – bradv🍁 17:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I do feel there is a lack of a good place to discuss arbitration-related matters. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration redirects to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, and while I appreciate the desire to reduce the number of talk pages to watch, it seems to me not many people would think of the requests talk page as a place to look for general discussions on the arbitration process. isaacl (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with people using this as a more general space. People don't watch WT:AC --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

In my view, it has become accepted practice and that practice is appropriate. AGK ■ 15:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable for AC to have a noticeboard akin to AN,BN, etc. and WT:ACN is as good a place as any - so maybe add something to the header text clarifying that. –xeno^talk 16:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

As the request made to amend the Palestine-Israel Articles 3 case has been folded in to the ongoing PIA4 case (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Workshop#Proposals by User:ZScarpia) and nobody has commented on the request at ARCA for the best part of a month, the amendment request can probably be closed. Thryduulf (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It's currently there as an aide memoir until the PD of ARBPIA 4 is posted. I don't want to forget it! Worm^TT(talk) 17:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough! I withdraw my suggestion then. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I have reviewed the list of participants at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals#Involved_parties, and I believe that the list omits one editor who should have been included due to their sustained WP:BATTLEFIELD conduct.

AIUI, the decision on who to lost as a party is made by ArCom. Please can you advise me on how and where I can make the case to ArbCom for that editor's addition?

(Note that I first asked AGK on his talk page[10], but was kindly directed here by Jehochman.[11]) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, you can make your request on the talk page of the case and I will make sure the arbs are aware of it. If you prefer to make this request privately, you may instead email it to the arbitration committee. – bradv🍁 06:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Bradv. I will make it on the talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, is it okay if fixing vote tallies for the proposed decision is the only allowable exception to the "ARBCOM-only edits" rule on said pages? I'm just wondering because as of right now, the arbitrators' votes don't match up with the tallies in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Proposed decision. ToThAc (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

ToThAc, thanks for the heads up, I've just updated the count. – bradv🍁 23:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am goung to file ARCA to ask for clarification of how guide.expect are enforced in the areas covered by DS. No concrete case is affected by that ARCA, and no users are involved. How do I fill the ARCA template, and what should I put in "case", "decision", and "title" lines? Thank you in advance. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, I'm not sure ARCA is best-suited to hypothetical questions (if this indeed is one), but feel free to leave any fields blank that don't apply. The clerks can perform any necessary cleanup. – bradv🍁 00:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. My questions are not hypothetical. I see a significant discrepancy between guide.expect wording and real actions of some admins at AE, and I would like to know whether the problem is in my misunderstanding of guide.expect, or we are having problems with implementation of DS.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

While there isn't a formal rule, cases and controversies are better suited for ARCA than hypotheticals --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up that this case needs to be closed as soon as possible now that a day has passed since the threshold required for closure was met. ToThAc (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

ToThAc, you are correct. This will be closed shortly. – bradv🍁 04:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

These need to be done away with because right now, all they accomplish is making the clerks look somewhat self-important. As a party or someone presenting evidence, the best course of action is always to ping the most engaged drafting arb since they have the full picture of what’s going on and can grant exemptions from basically any rule. Even if they aren’t pinged first, which they usually are, if a clerk “rules” against someone you can be assured arbs will be pinged next. For admin clerks WP:INVOLVED comes into play for admin actions, and in terms of patrolling behaviour: all actions are publicly taken individually, so just not acting on something has the same exact impact. Plus see the ping a drafting arb comment: any actually controversial actions will be decided by arbs, not clerks. The only other stuff is literally paperwork that no one would care about if a clerk was involved. Getting rid of this would open up more people for workloads and get rid of some of the silly legalesque stuff that’s unneeded from ArbCom. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The clerks are responsible for clerking discussions on arbspace pages, and so I think recusal is particularly useful when it comes to that. When they are responsible for potentially removing comments, it's best they not have conflicts of interest. I understand your point that a clerk with a COI could just not clerk those pages, rather than officially recusing, but the explicit recusal offers confirmation to parties in the case that that clerk is also not participating in any discussions of clerk actions that might be occurring on email. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See, I don’t think that’s useful. If you asked the average project space denizen who clerks were, with the possible exception of Kevin, I don’t think many people would know. This is probably anecdotal, but the only people I’ve ever heard discussing clerk recusals are the clerks amongst themselves. It seems to be something taken extremely seriously by the clerk team, but that participants in arb space probably don’t care about. This isn’t a big deal, but it’s probably the easiest officious bit of ArbCom that could be nixed without anyone noticing. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Signifying recusals is probably also useful in coordination. There are a limited number of clerks, so knowing which of their colleagues are unavailable for a particular case allows the uninvolved clerks to pay closer attention to those requests. –xeno^talk 19:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good point as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

My point is that I don’t think it matters at all. An involved clerk can do almost anything without it being controversial. The only controversial thing would be removing comments, and those typically go to a list based on my understanding, so it’s easy to say “hey, can someone else do this?” TonyBallioni (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of comments is usually left up to individual clerk judgment, and only brought to the list if the clerk is unsure or if the removal is challenged. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I’d been told most clerks email the list before removing, so thanks for the correction :) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that arbitrators assume all clerking duties related to managing editor comments, including enforcing word limits? And clerks would solely perform administrative edits to track case status and move them from phase to phase? isaacl (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

No. See my response to xeno. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I was distracted by your digression into going straight to arbitrators instead of having clerks make discretionary decisions. I understand the point about how public recusals from doing purely administrative work may seem overly bureaucratic, and I can agree with that. Since the committee has free rein over its day-to-day operating procedures, though, I defer to it (and any assistants to which it delegates) to decide on its preferred mode of operation. isaacl (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that, I guess my question for arbs and clerks who see this as useful: when was the last time that someone who isn’t a clerk or arb requested a clerk recused or mentioned it? I’m honestly curious. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I have to disagree at least partly - I feel that recusal is entirely appropriate when a clerk is party to a case. While a lot of clerk actions are indeed uncontroversial paperwork, I think there's an appearances concern. Imagining a case request where there are two opposed parties and one of them is a clerk - if the clerk were to use their "clerk powers" in a way that affected the other party (say, warning them about going over te word limit), that would feel to me like an inappropriate use of those powers even if it was the correct thing for a clerk to do. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with GorillaWarfare's comment above -- I would definitely prefer explicit recusals to implicit "don't work on cases you're involved in". ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So many things off here, so little time to correct them.

• These need to be done away with because right now, all they accomplish is making the clerks look somewhat self-important.

  This, like many things was created to cut back on the screaming that people do at the clerks. We could move this to our list, but then people would be angry that it isn't public.

• For admin clerks WP:INVOLVED comes into play for admin actions, and in terms of patrolling behaviour: all actions are publicly taken individually, so just not acting on something has the same exact impact.

  All admin clerk actions are backed by the weight of the committee. It is best to see the admin actions we do as an extension of ArbCom than Guerillero deciding to block someone today.

• Plus see the ping a drafting arb comment: any actually controversial actions will be decided by arbs, not clerks.

  This isn't the slightest bit true at all. Clerks keep order on the case pages and routinely refactor/warn people. We are asked to do this and not wait for a thumbs up. These are some of the most controversial parts of a case

• The only other stuff is literally paperwork that no one would care about if a clerk was involved.

  I promise you the parties care about who posts notices on their talk page and changes the vote count in a template.

• Getting rid of this would open up more people for workloads and get rid of some of the silly legalesque stuff that’s unneeded from ArbCom.

  The clerk office is possibly one of the best parts of the whole arbitration process. Bradv and AGK are probably the only people on the committee who have an idea of how to open a case or close a motion.

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with every response here, having participated in a few cases, my experience is pretty much the exact opposite of the above, with the exception that I agree clerks do extremely useful work. I just raised this as I’ve thought it a while and seeing them at the current request reminded me to start a discussion. Also to clarify on your last response: I certainly wasn’t saying no one would notice if we got rid of clerks. I was saying that if a clerk never recused again in the future I don’t think anyone who isn’t a clerk or committee member would notice. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Anyway, since there seems to be strong views on the usefulness of this, won’t push it further. I was trying to point out that from an outside perspective having clerk recusals comes off a bit silly, not as a criticism of the team. I still think that, but if I’m the only one it’s not something worth fighting over. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
• FWIW I agree with TonyBallioni and have often wondered why a clerk states they are recused. If there were some reason for the recusal such as an involvement with issues in the case, the logical step would be to not clerk and not say anything. By contrast, arbs have to recuse because every active arb is expected to participate in each case. Johnuniq (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Where it's important to be clear that a given clerk will not be involved in a case, a clerk recusal can be posted on-wiki. However, where the grounds for recusal are less clear-cut, and the clerk just would prefer not to get involved with a given case for whatever reason, there is also the option of the clerk's not posting on-wiki but just not handling the case. In this respect, the clerks are situated differently from the arbitrators, since it's necessary to know which arbs is recused in order to compute majorities and the like. So I wouldn't say "clerk recusals" should be abolished, but I would say there don't need to be as many posted clerk recusals as we currently see. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with NYB, Johnuniq and Tony Ballioni. If a clerk is a party to a case then it can be stated clearly that they are recused. But most of the time there's no need for it, it's enough just to stay away from the case. I don't think there were a lot of public recusals when I was a clerk or an Arb. Doug Weller talk 12:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I think there is a bit of confusion here. Recusing is not done for the benefit of the clerk (or arbitrator) but for the benefit of the parties involved in a particular case request. It doesn't matter whether I think I can be unbiased, recusing is to reassure the involved parties who might feel I COULD be biased that I won't be involved in a case in any capacity. I think most clerks believe they could fairly handle any case but the participants might perceive the situation differently and so an individual recuses so there isn't a perception of possible bias.

Personally, I most often alert the clerks via our email list if I think my participation might draw questions and I decide to recuse. But posting this information directly on a case request is also a valid choice, again, for the benefit of the involved parties' piece of mind. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Can a clerk or arb take a look at this? It seems weird to have a anonymous former editor who won't identify them self commenting on the evidence. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Just another heads up that this case needs to be closed as soon as possible now that the threshold required for closure was met. ToThAc (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you please do this CodeLyoko? --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 20:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

At the talk page for arbitration case 2019-10's Proposed decision, there are numerous comments being made in other people's sections. Now I don't really mind, but given that editors tend to mimic what they see others do, I suggest that either the comments should be moved, or the header at the top, stating that editors should only comment in their own sections, should be modified or removed. isaacl (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks like a lost cause at this point, but I would like the drafting arb or a case clerk to respond @Cameron11598, CodeLyoko, Xeno, Maxim, and Worm That Turned: --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 20:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, even I just violated the sectioning directions and I should know better. I'm not sure how to untangle all of the comments at this point. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Guerillero, speaking for myself, I'm OK with editors commenting in others' sections. I understand the utility of sectioned comments, but in this case, the discussion doesn't really seem so bad as to require it. Maxim_(talk) 20:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Remove the header, no need for sectioned comments. Worm^TT(talk) 20:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, just as I moved my comment. Oh, well! It still makes sense where it is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Worm That Turned, Maxim, and Xeno: I removed it --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think CodeLyoko copied the header from another case. It’s a sometimes, not an always rule I think. Not needed here. –xeno^talk 21:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, if the arbitrators want to allow threaded discussion on the proposed decision talk page, I have no objection. But I think it's a bad idea to put up the header saying editors should comment in their own section, this time in arbitration case 2020-1's Proposed decision page, and not enforce the directions. Those who diligently follow directions are at a disadvantage over those ignoring them. isaacl (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, sectioned comments wasn't followed at the Portals case's Proposed decision talkpage, either. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

That talk page didn't have any directions for editors to only comment in their own section. isaacl (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Thought it was a standard practice thing. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I'm Minecrafter0271. I would be interested to become a trainee. I'm not sure if this is how I put a request in, but I thought it would make the most sense. If I was wrong, please let me know. Anyway, I want to become a trainee because I want to help make Wikipedia even better, and this, in my opinion, is a good way of doing it. I know that, because I have been here for a month, that I might not seem like the best choice, but I honestly believe that I can do it, and that I am trustworthy enough to do it. Please consider my request. Thanks! Minecrafter0271 (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Minecrafter0271: Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks#Appointments. Editors interested in becoming a clerk should contact the clerk mailing list at clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I sent an email, but it says that it needs "Moderator Approval." Is this normal? Minecrafter0271 (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Minecrafter0271: Yep, emails to that list have to be manually moderated through for anti-spam purposes. I can let it through. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Thanks! I have one more question: Because I haven't been here for a year, could that impact my likelihood of becoming a trainee? Minecrafter0271 (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Minecrafter0271: Yes, it certainly could. As stated in the section I linked, Generally the clerks will look for an editor who has edited for at least a year and has developed a track record for working well in heated areas and are not currently or recently subject to sanctions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Will they base their decision on mostly that, or will they consider other things? Minecrafter0271 (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Minecrafter0271: I would recommend just waiting for a response from the clerks directly; I can only speculate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: How long can I expect to wait? Sorry for all the questions, but I am completely new to this. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Minecrafter0271: I would guess no more than a few days. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Thanks so much! I really appreciate it. Bye! Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you please take a look at this --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 21:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Clarification please.

"For this case there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 5 who have abstained or recused, so 6 support or oppose votes are a majority."

But the table below that text suggests that a support majority of 4 is required where abstentions are 3-4. Does the table need to be recalibrated to take account the number of sitting members? Or am I simply misreading it?

Majority reference Abstentions Support votes needed for majority 0 6 1–2 5 3–4 4 Leaky caldron (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Leaky caldron: Hi, I see what the confusion is. The template is not terrifically designed. Arbitrators may recuse on a case entirely (or go inactive or abstain), or they may abstain on a particular vote (but not for the entire case). The table below the text is for calculating the majority given the number of additional arbitrators, beyond the ones who have recused on the entire case, who abstain from a particular vote on a particular principle/FoF/remedy. So if 3-4 arbs abstained on, say, principle 1, then 4 arbs would constitute a majority on that principle. Hope this helps, Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 08:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin. It does, a bit :) Leaky caldron (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

To be specific, in the current case [12], with 1 abstention for remedy 1) the majority needed is 5? Leaky caldron (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. If 1 or 2 people abstain from a specific remedy, there are 8 or 9 left to decide. 5 is the majority of both 8 and 9, meaning the remedy currently passes with 5 in support. On the other hand, if the one abstaining decides to later switch to oppose, the majority required reverts back to 6 and the remedy can no longer pass unless there is a 6th support vote. Regards SoWhy 11:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Clerks! It seems like Template:ArbComOpenTasks/CaseRequests needs to be updated with the "Medical pricing" case request. Best, MrClog (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

MrClog, Done. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 23:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Moneytrees, same goes for Mottainai. --MrClog (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

In the past the talk page has been a place for editors to inquire on the status of delayed proposed decisions. With that talk page now closed until the proposed decision is opened what's the preferred venue for those inquiries? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The main case talk page should work. We didn't protect the PD talk either, so IAR still applies... –xeno^talk 14:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

In my view, inquiring about the status of a proposed decision still falls under the scope of discussing the proposed decision. (The extended commentary that took place during a recent case prior to the posting of the proposed decision, on the other hand, did not fall within the scope.) isaacl (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Arbitration standard provisions. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The RFAR against JzG has been at three supports and seven declines for over two days now. Ten arbs are active, plus Katie who is about to become active, and has voted. I don't see how the case can be accepted with those numbers. Is there any special reason it's still open? Cameron hasn't edited for five days, so I'm posting to this page in the hope that somebody is watching it. Bishonen | tålk 13:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC).

PS, I do realize the clerks are volunteers just like the rest of us! Bishonen | tålk 13:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: It will be archived in 20 hours or so --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi clerks, I noticed on the list of topics codes there are multiple entries for Gamergate.... is that intentional? I don't particularly care, I just point it out as a wikignome observation.

My real question is whether DS applies to gender issues, and if so, what is the topic code? It looks like GamerGate and Gender have somehow been entwined on the topic code list. If there is housekeeping to be done to straighten things out I would entertain doing a chunk of that repetitive sort of work to help out. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Not a clerk, but I think the "gap"/"ggtf" codes are supposed to refer to the gender gap task force sanctions (unless the sanctions of the two cases have been merged?) GeneralNotability (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: The multiple entries are just for convenience; there is still only the single Committee decision authorizing DS on all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate § Discretionary sanctions). You can use any of the topic codes "gg", "ggtf", "gap", and "pa" with identical effect. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Please elaborate on the connection between Gamegate and gender. For example, if I talk about equal pay for equal work proposals (either yay or nay) in some way that has nothing to do with GameGate, does DS apply to that discussion? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

If something is a "gender-related dispute or controversy", then it falls within DS coverage, regardless of whether GamerGate is involved or not. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, its a bit strange having it combined in the GamerGate business, but OK, thanks for verifying. Have a great day NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Discretionary sanctions are named after the arbitration case in which they were authorized, so we have a few cases where the topic area covered by discretionary sanctions is broader than the case name might imply. For example, all pages related to complementary and alternative medicine are under discretionary sanctions as a result of the arbitration case titled Acupuncture. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Clerks,

It appears in 2011, the community added sanctions for the entire abortion topic area. This included a topic-wide 1RR.

ArbCom later took over the Abortion sanctions in WP:ARBAB. They authorised DS for the topic area.

In 2015, a clarification request was made asking whether 1RR was to be made a case remedy, as it was enacted by the community. 5 arbs agreed to this. I don't believe that was a majority at the time, and there was no motion made, and there remains no amendment to the original WP:ARBAB case to specify 1RR exists for the topic area, and if so, what the scope of 1RR should be.

So my question is: what's the status of 1RR on abortion? Is this something that requires an ARCA, or is it just something that needs some clerking? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Callanecc said "Procedural note here, it looks to me like the Committee, in the Abortion case, took over only the community imposed discretionary sanctions, not the community imposed 1RR. Therefore the community sanctions page appears to be the correct venue to record 1RR vios until/unless the Committee takes over the 1RR restriction, in which case they'd be logged on the main case page as they aren't discretionary sanctions." which appears to be still correct since there was no motion. But I would go to ARCA because GS claims that arbcom took it over in 2015 which they couldn't have done.

TBH, this is mostly a procedural question about where to log things --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

That comment seemed logical to me (hence my confusion). But if you look at the talk notice used on all abortion pages, Template:ArbCom sanctions - abortion, one would think 1RR is being enforced across abortion. It's being considered an ArbCom remedy now, apparently. Agree it's mostly procedural, as one way or another 1RR is authorised from somewhere (AC or community). Just unclear where. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Filed ARCA. Thanks! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't the result of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations be mentioned on the DS talk page templates, eg at Talk:The Holocaust in Poland, as a parameter option in the template or something? They're mentioned at Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, where the restriction was originally enacted, but not (I believe) on any other pages in the restricted topic area ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes absolutely. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi - I'm considering whether or not to request clarification on the wording of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations. This comes off the back of the long discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Volunteer_(book). To be clear, I believe that everyone involved is acting in good faith, trying to interpret the wording of the remedy but failing to come to agreement; I'm not looking for anyone to be sanctioned in any way, just for some clarity about the meaning of a particular phrase. If I were to raise a request, would it be procedurally necessary to name individual editors as parties? I'm not looking to do this under the radar, I'd be happy to notify everyone involved in the discussion of the request, but I'd rather not put people through the experience of finding themselves a named party in an arbcom case if I don't need to do that. Thanks in advance for any advice. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

You could start an WP:ARCA request naming no other parties, provide a link to interested users/discussions, and let the committee/clerks decide if any additional parties need be officially named as involved or directly affected in the Clarification. –xeno^talk 14:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Xeno, thanks, I'll do that if I decide to proceed. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: And, just for the record, being listed as a party to a clarification request is nothing like being listed as a party to a case request – all it does is make sure that people get notifications about the outcome. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

L235, well you know that, and now I know that. I just wouldn't want to give anyone who didn't know that an unnecessary, stomach-sinking, OMFG moment when they logged in after I've done it, if you know what I mean :) GirthSummit _(blether) 19:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)