Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks

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

Noticeboard[edit]


Arbitrators, clerks and trainees: Please coordinate your actions through the mailing list. The purpose of this page is for editors who are not clerks to request clerk assistance.

Non-admin edits to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF[edit]

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. WBGconverse 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. โ€“ bradv๐Ÿ 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. โ€“ bradv๐Ÿ 14:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia:Editing restrictions ยง 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-l@lists.wikimedia.org." Best, Kevin (aka L235 ยท t ยท 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. โ€“ bradv๐Ÿ 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 ยท t ยท c) 17:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Help filing a claim?[edit]

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. โ€“ bradv๐Ÿ 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. โ€” 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. โ€“ bradv๐Ÿ 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. โ€“ bradv๐Ÿ 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. โ€“ bradv๐Ÿ 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. โ€” 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

Clerking at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Proposed decision[edit]

This comment should be in its own section (I also think it's rather unhelpful, but that is just my opinion). Thanks! โ€“FlyingAceโœˆhello 20:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Closing the Fram case[edit]

Case has been closed, and SchroCat has been unblocked. SQLQuery me! 23:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hello. Am I right in thinking that the clerks will be closing the Fram case today (link to proposed decision) as it has been net four to close since 13:56 UTC yesterday (20 September)? Or are you waiting for the go-ahead from an arbitrator? If the case is closing today, could I ask that you consider unblocking User:SchroCat who was blocked by a clerk for 48 hours for edit warring with them on the PD talk page. It would seem pointless to leave them blocked once the case is closed. Carcharoth (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I will add my voice to second this request. (and ty Carcharoth) โ€” Ched (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, the case is due to be closed today. I will raise the matter of unblocking SchroCat with the other clerks. โ€“ bradv๐Ÿ 12:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Carcharoth, it has to be at net 4 for 24 hours. I believe that we do wait for the go-ahead from the arbs, which I have requested already via the mailing list. As to the block, I'd support an unblock at this time - SchroCat appears to acknowledge the behavior that led to the block, and I don't believe that it will recur (especially if the case is closed). SQLQuery me! 15:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    We have the go-ahead to close @ 24 hours, which is in about 3 hours if my math is right (Mkdw was the net 4th @ 16:13, SilkTork didn't replace the 1st support until 16:48). SQLQuery me! 15:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland[edit]

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? โ€“ bradv๐Ÿ 00:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh nevermind I see it now. โ€“ bradv๐Ÿ 00:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker, I believe I've fixed the count. โ€“ bradv๐Ÿ 00:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Recommendation for the harassment RFC[edit]

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)

Belt and suspenders question - renaming main articles subject to existing ruling[edit]

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. โ€“ bradv๐Ÿ 03:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for such a speedy reply! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic threads at WT:AC/N[edit]

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? โ€“xenotalk 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. โ€“ bradv๐Ÿ 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. โ€“xenotalk 16:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

PIA 3 amendment request[edit]

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! WormTT(talk) 17:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough! I withdraw my suggestion then. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)