Noticeboard

Clerks' noticeboard (shortcut WP:AC/CN)

Clerks' Noticeboard

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/5/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Yasuke	13 Nov 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	15 November 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al	none	(orig. case)	15 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee	none	none	15 November 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

This noticeboard's primary purpose is to to attract the attention of the clerks to a particular matter by non-clerks. Non-clerks are welcome to comment on this page in the event that the clerks appear to have missed something.

Private matters

The clerks may be contacted privately, in the event a matter could not be prudently addressed publicly (i.e., on this page), by composing an email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org; only the clerk team and individual arbitrators have access to emails sent to that list.

Procedures

A procedural reference for clerks (and arbitrators) is located here.

Clerks and trainees, please coordinate your actions through this section, so that we don't have multiple clerks working on the same cases at the same time. An IRC channel, #wikipedia-en-arbcom-clerks, and a mailing list, Clerks-l, are also available for private co-ordination and communication, although the mailing list is fairly low traffic.

Pending Requests

Open Cases

All work relating to Arbitration cases already opened

Active/inactive arbitrators

This list will be used to set the number of active Arbitrators and the case majority on cases as they open. As of 12 February 2010, there are 11 active Arbitrators for all new cases, and the majority is therefore 6 for all new cases (that is, those accepted after the "as of" date). See WP:AC/C/P#Calculating the majority for help. The master list is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Current members.

Active (as of 12 February 2010):

Cool Hand Luke
Fritzpoll
Kirill Lokshin
KnightLago
Newyorkbrad
Risker
Rlevse
Roger Davies
Shell Kinney
SirFozzie
Steve Smith

Away or inactive:

Carcharoth
Coren except for MZMcBride 2
FayssalF
Hersfold
Mailer diablo
Wizardman

Arbitrator announcements

Arbitrators, please note if you wish to declare yourself active or away/inactive, either generally or for specific cases. The clerks will update the relevant cases as needed. If you are returning, please indicate whether you wish to be: 1) Put back to active on all cases; 2) Left on inactive on all open cases, and only put to active on new cases; or 3) Left to set yourself to active on cases you wish (remember to update the majority on its /Proposed decision page).

Long term projects

None, currently.

Discussion

Archives

1 (to 26 January, 2006)
2 (to 28 January, 2006)
3 (archive of a discussion started on January 29, 2006 at the incidents noticeboard)
4 (to 28 January, 2006)
5 (to May 2009)
6 (noticeboard merged→present)

Images in case statements

There is a growing tendency to add irrelevant images to statements. These are attention seeking and serve only to reinforce the writer's POV. I've removed one just now. Please remove any others as and when they appear. Thanks, Roger Davies ^talk 07:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus

I was perusing the arbcom case and noticed that the 1 year ban for piotrus ended up at 4 supports and 3 against, while 1 arb stated that they were abstaining. This means that there was one undeclared abstention (i.e. an arb didn't vote in any direction), meaning the motion passed (2 abstaining arbs means 4 is the magic number)? Or is a non response considered a vote against rather than abstaining? More a procedural question to further my own understanding than anything else. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not voting is the same as opposing since we tallying the number of supports to figure if a motion or proposal passes. An abstain vote must be actively noted by voting since it reduces the majority. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 20:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superb :) Thank you very much! --Narson ~ Talk • 22:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting of guide

Clerks, I am trying to copyedit the guide to arbitration for clarity. User:Penwhale asked that I place a notice here. The edits will concentrate on clarifying and simplifying the language; please let me know if I make inadvertent changes that you would consider a problem. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Jack Merridew motion

Hi. There were two full copies of my last motion; one on the page and another on the talk page, and also duplicate copies of the prior motion in the intros to the new motion. I noticed that the motion had been moved per the discussion last month and went to tidy-up the link to it from my history page and I have cut the duplication for clarity. The only substantive change is a change of the word 'following' to 'above', as I made the second motion link to the original just above it instead of repeating it. I have linked to the copy of the votes and discussion on the talk page as was done for the prior motion and also added a link to the statements from my mentors and myself. It all seems much clearer to me this way.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

request help from a clerk

Tothwolf, who's involved in an arbcom case with me, has decided to mark himself as retired in his user page. As a final bout of incivility, he's written a farewell post on his talk page which links to diff that includes a semi-attack on me. please see [[1]]. I've tried to remove the wiki link to the attack, but he's come out of retirement to restore it. could someone remove the attack diff from his goodbye? the diff consists of uncivil language such as "Theserialcomma, you aren't fooling anyone here either." "due to your wikihounding, harassment, collusion, and gaming of the system." "considering that you've taken to harassing and wikihounding multiple editors (too many to name) and even administrators" and "heserialcomma, let me also be quite blunt with you: I'm not afraid of you or your bullying. Try as you did to find my identity and information about me to use to out, bully, and threaten me, you failed to find anything (although you certainly left quite a paper trail during your efforts)". i dont think he should be allowed to leave this soapbox, rambling nonsense personal attack against me as his 'farewell' to wikipedia message, since the arbcom results did not find anything he is claiming Theserialcomma (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This does not relate to the enforcement of guidelines for conduct on arbitration pages, so there is little a clerk could do for you. Might you have more luck at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents? AGK 00:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration clerks

The Arbitration clerks welcome the following users to the clerk team as trainees:

The clerk team as well as the committee would also like to congratulate the following clerks who have been confirmed as "full clerks":

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

Tiptoety ^talk 04:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Just a note to the clerks, I believe there is an error with my time zone listing. I am not in the Pacific Time zone, but the Central Time Zone (Americas). I have been unsuccessful with getting the template to accurately work since it appears that I am the only person in this time zone currently. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - I had to make a tweak to the time zone template because it appeared yours was not included. Anyways, welcome. Tiptoety ^talk 05:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to the selected trainees. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding the congratulations. Perhaps there should be an official Arbitration Clerk Song Contest? :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 05:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to the three trainees who have shown their mettle through challenging times, and are now full clerks: Good work!. And congratulations and welcome to the team to our four new clerk trainees. Glad to have you all aboard; I will look forward to working with all of you. Risker (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tothwolf, again

i was told that this was not an arbcom enforcement situation and to bring it to ANI instead; however, i believe it's crossed into arbcom enforcement territory. tothwolf, per the arbcom ruling, has been (or will be) warned not to make any further bad faith accusations against other editors. when the arbcom voting began, he decided to "retire" in order not to face the enforcement. however, his talk page consists of a vague, soapboxy personal attack against the editors who were found not to be harassing him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tothwolf he links a diff which is nothing but a direct attack on me [[2]], and serves no purpose but to cast aspersions and negativity on me. i tried to remove only the diff, and tothwolf then came out of 'retirement' to start more drama. someone please look into this. the arbcom case filed against tothwolf is, if anything, going to admonish him for his bad faith accusations. they should not be allowed to continue as a soapbox on his talkpage. Theserialcomma (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it feels like tothwolf has "retired" because he didn't like the outcome of the arbcom situation. fair enough. but on the other hand, he wants to go out with as much drama as possible. is it really necessary for him to have his soapbox farewell message link to a diff stating "... Miami33139 and JBsupreme due to your wikihounding, harassment, collusion, and gaming of the system" and "Try as you did to find my identity and information about me to use to out, bully, and threaten me, you failed to find anything (although you certainly left quite a paper trail during your efforts)." this is craziness that does not help build the encyclopedia in anyway, and it undermines arbcom's proposed decision which is supposed to stop tothwolf's false allegations against others http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Proposed_decision#Allegations_against_other_editors . he's also been admonished for his decorum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Proposed_decision#Decorum . can a clerk please modify/remove his message so that it complies with arbcom's finding on decorum and false allegations? Theserialcomma (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The case isn't closed yet (soon I believe), so your only recourse is in fact ANI as you asked on my talk page. You can also add it to the evidence. Dougweller (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speed of Light amendment

Could a clerk please place the current size and majority figures on the speed of light motions?--Tznkai (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification - I do not understand the instructions

I see the template and can fill it out. But what do I do with it then? I do not see where to file it. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "where?" Are you seeing the full instructions in the edit notice when you click edit on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Proposed decision

Question about the motion to close. Is this being held for some reason? It's been over 24 hours since Rlevse's oppose vote (made when there were 7 votes to close) and the motion has been over 4 net votes since the evening of the 10th. If it just hasn't been got to yet, that's fine, but if there is some further trigger that the clerks are waiting for, they might want to note it in the implementation notes. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Footnoted quotes

Alansohn (talk · contribs) has been notified about this but has not yet responded. Could someone remind them that their responses would be welcomed please? Thanks, Roger Davies ^talk 23:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Proofreader77_blocks

Excuse me as I learn my way around. If I have a question about process/protocol, may I ask it here? (I'd left a note for Ryan on his talk, but realized I should perhaps ask this to all the clerks.) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 04:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Tang Dynasty

ArbCom remedies in Tang Dynasty imply a multi-step process, e.g., restrictions "... to begin when a mentor is located and approved by the Committee." However, no process was established.

In the absence of specifics, User:Mattisse/Plan seemed arguably relevant as a model. Tenmei's plan and list of proposed mentors was e-mailed to each ArbCom member. However, protocols for confirming ArbCom's approval of each mentor is unknown. The process will need to encompass notifying each ArbCom-approved mentor; and informing Tenmei will be essential as well.

Mentors have been located. Now what? If this is the wrong venue, what is the more appropriate one?

Plan

The explicit core of complaints consists of one item only: Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read.

Optimistic predictions about Tenmei's ability and willingness to make mentorship successful arise from the range and quality of those who have agreed to be presented for ArbCom confirmation:

This small group, plus an evolving vocabulary, plus tactical planning and tactical methods for avoiding complicated subjects form the crux of a strategy for the near future.

Pre-planning encompassed:

1. An outside-the-box search for prospective wiki-"mentors" and advisors involved (a) rejecting any sort of censor-like/monitor-like/probation officer-like straw men; (b) accepting and valuing meaningful help and coaching.

2. First steps involved contriving (a) a committee structure; (b) venues for working together, including an "Alerts" or monitoring sub-page; and (c) vocabulary conventions for communicating within the group, including shared terminology and catch-phrases like metacognition, anti-pattern, and "soft wiki-pacifism".

3. Learning from failure was inevitable and repeated.

This overview was developed in an ArbCom-imposed limbo-like/purgatory-like context. This summary of modeling and simulation is the result of two-months work. Further assessments on the basis of off-wiki projections have limited utility. This plan will be tweaked on a periodic and an episodic basis in response to on-wiki experiences.

Additional subjects not fully investigated include contrition and/or regret (emotion)/regret (decision theory)/expression of regret. Longer-term objectives are not yet identified. --Tenmei (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]