Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:44, 15 March 2014 editRockfang (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers26,410 edits The Mailing List: added comment about not getting any emails from the list← Previous edit Revision as of 10:53, 16 March 2014 edit undoSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,206 edits The Mailing ListNext edit →
Line 95: Line 95:


I do not appear to be getting any emails from the list. I checked my list settings on the archive site and they are appear to be fine. Any suggestions?--] (]) 22:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC) I do not appear to be getting any emails from the list. I checked my list settings on the archive site and they are appear to be fine. Any suggestions?--] (]) 22:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

==Log entry removals at ]==
On the case page ], a non-admin editor, {{u|NE Ent}} (), and an editor who is the subject of log entries, {{u|Neotarf}} (), are removing log entries from the arbitration case page, including the log entries of warnings against which the Committee previously . This appears to me to be a disruption of the arbitration process. I am asking arbitration clerks to determine which if any version of the page should be restored. There is also an ongoing ] discussion about related matters. Thanks, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:53, 16 March 2014

Noticeboard

Clerks' noticeboard (shortcut WP:AC/CN)

Clerks' Noticeboard

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

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-l@lists.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 the mailing list. The purpose of this page is for editors who are not clerks to request clerk assistance.

Arbitrator announcements

Members

See also: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/History § Current and former members

These editors are the elected members of the Arbitration Committee (known as arbitrators). Votes of the committee are taken among the active members. Members are marked active or inactive so that the majority for new votes can be calculated. Members on wikibreak, not participating in arbitration within the past week, or indicating they will be absent are marked inactive.

Members moving back to active may remain inactive on some or all existing business. If you wish to know whether an arbitrator is active on a particular matter, please ask on their talk page (or check the proposed decision talk page, for cases). The list below is used to determine whether each arbitrator is active by default. Arbitrators who go on to participate in a vote will be counted as active for it even if they are listed as inactive below.

The following list is accurate as of 15 December 2024:

Active

  1. Aoidh (talk · contribs)
  2. Cabayi (talk · contribs)
  3. CaptainEek (talk · contribs)
  4. Guerillero (talk · contribs)
  5. HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)
  6. Moneytrees (talk · contribs)
  7. Primefac (talk · contribs)
  8. Sdrqaz (talk · contribs)
  9. ToBeFree (talk · contribs)
  10. Z1720 (talk · contribs)

Inactive

  1. Firefly (talk · contribs)
  2. L235 (talk · contribs)

Arbitrators-elect (taking office 1 January 2025)

  1. Daniel (talk · contribs)
  2. Elli (talk · contribs)
  3. KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs)
  4. Liz (talk · contribs)
  5. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs)
  6. Theleekycauldron (talk · contribs)
  7. Worm That Turned (talk · contribs)
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

Discussion

Please use this section if you are not a clerk or arbitrator, but require clerical assistance.

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→Jun 2012)
  • 7 (June 2012→present)

Net Four on "Kafziel's AfC actions" request

If I understand correctly (only because I am trying to help clarify for dissenting Arbs) this vote makes the net four procedure no longer valid. Am I correct in this evaluation, or have I missed the fact that the net was valid at one point therefore the procedure is still good to go. Hasteur (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes that's correct, although only one more accept vote is needed for their to be a majority to accept. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Annother ping. It appears that we have Absolute Majority + (24 hours expired since this majority) + (48 hours since request was filed) criteria being fufilled. Any ETA on the case being opened, or is there a behind the scenes discussion by the committee to dispose of the case expediently? Hasteur (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It's more of a behind the scenes discussion regarding who is going to clerk both of the cases open now, and waiting on the Committee to give us the go-ahead to open them. --Rschen7754 21:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay, but I think we have it all figured out, and Kafziel should be opening within about 12 hours or so. --Rschen7754 01:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Dan Murphy

Could someone please add the following to the pending case request about Dan Murphy--thanks.

Comment of 50.0.121.102

Since arbcom is the last step of Misplaced Pages dispute resolution, I don't agree with 28bytes' view that off-wiki harassment that chills a Misplaced Pages editor's participation in Misplaced Pages (as surely happened to 28bytes) is outside Arbcom purview. It is clearly within the scope of on-wiki DR. If someone else got outed off-wiki and wanted to pursue on-wiki remedies, they certainly should be entitled to do so. I could go along with Arbcom dropping the case at hand because 28bytes doesn't want to pursue it, and I could see declining it because there haven't been prior attempts at resolution. Normally something like this would first be brought up at AN or ANI, I would think, especially since the relevant private info is already out of the bag. But that's all specific to this particular incident. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

And you are...? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Kafziel Workshop Closure Date

Per this change which appears to have been conducted behind the scenes, I would like a summary of who requested the change, if the primary clerk for the case (Callanecc) had signed off on this change, if the drafting Arbiter (Risker) approved of this change, what debate there was about said change, why (as the editor primarily bringing the action) that I was not informed of this change, and how I may go about appealing this behind the scenes change. I ask because I've now had to defend myself against a competing set of workshop proposals that reads straight from the viewpoint of Kafziel that would have been ruled outside the workshop deadline as I am assuming good faith at the extension. Hasteur (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This was at the request of Risker, because she has proposals that she wants to make before moving forward with the proposed decision. --Rschen7754 17:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

non admin logging DS

Please see and related ANI thread. 12:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Proposed decision implementation notes

I would like to draw the clerks attention to the implementaion notes on this case. The last note update was over 48 hours ago, and several Arbitrators have voted causing some of the propositions to move into passing, others needing updates on the margins still necessary for passing, and iff supports that need to be indicated. Hasteur (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

RfAr: Gun control

I've spoken with Seraphimblade and we concur about extending the closing of the evidence phase until 23:59 (UTC) on 25th January and to push back the other target dates accordingly. I've mentioned this on the case pages here. Could one of the clerks please action this? Thanks v.m.  Roger Davies 07:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Clerks seeking new volunteers

The Arbitration Committee clerks are currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors willing to serve as clerks. The responsibilities of clerks include opening and closing arbitration cases and motions; notifying parties of cases, decisions, and other committee actions; maintaining the requests for Arbitration pages; preserving order and proper formatting on case pages; and other administrative and related tasks they may be requested to handle by the arbitrators. Clerks are the unsung heroes of the arbitration process, keeping track of details to ensure that requests are handled in a timely and efficient manner. Clerks get front-line seats to the political and ethnic warfare that scorches Misplaced Pages periodically, and, since they aren't arbitrators themselves, are rarely threatened with violence by the participants.

Past clerks have gone on to be (or already were) successful lawyers, naval officers, and Presidents of Wikimedia Chapters. The salary and retirement packages for Clerks rival that of Arbitrators, to boot. Best of all, you get a cool fez!

Please email clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org if you are interested in becoming a clerk, and a clerk will reply with an acknowledgement of your message and any questions we want to put to you.

For the Arbitration Committee clerks, Rschen7754 04:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

67.60.15.218 (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You've made no request.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Partial inactivity

Please note that I've marked myself inactive on new cases, with effect from 16 Feb. Effectively that's everything apart from the Gun control case and the discretionary sanctions review.  Roger Davies 09:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The Mailing List

Is anyone having issues with the mailing list? I sent out an email to the list a few minutes ago, but I didn't get a copy of it sent to me like I normally do.--Rockfang (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I received it. The default setting is to not have it emailed to you. You can also always check the mailing list archives to see if it sent. --Rschen7754 19:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. My setting must have been reset or something because I've gotten the emails in the past.--Rockfang (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I also wonder whether something changed on mailman... I had the same issues on two other mailing lists (not this one). Trijnsteltalk 22:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not appear to be getting any emails from the list. I checked my list settings on the archive site and they are appear to be fine. Any suggestions?--Rockfang (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Log entry removals at WP:ARBATC

On the case page WP:ARBATC, a non-admin editor, NE Ent (), and an editor who is the subject of log entries, Neotarf (), are removing log entries from the arbitration case page, including the log entries of warnings against which the Committee previously declined an appeal. This appears to me to be a disruption of the arbitration process. I am asking arbitration clerks to determine which if any version of the page should be restored. There is also an ongoing WP:ANI discussion about related matters. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)