Revision as of 19:43, 21 July 2012

Noticeboard

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are 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.

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.

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.

Pending Requests

None, currently.

Open Cases

All work relating to Arbitration cases already opened.

Arbitrator announcements

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 1 January 2025:

Active

1. Aoidh (talk · contribs)
2. Cabayi (talk · contribs)
3. CaptainEek (talk · contribs)
4. Daniel (talk · contribs)
5. Elli (talk · contribs)
6. HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)
7. KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs)
8. Liz (talk · contribs)
9. Primefac (talk · contribs)
10. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs)
11. Sdrqaz (talk · contribs)
12. Theleekycauldron (talk · contribs)
13. ToBeFree (talk · contribs)
14. Worm That Turned (talk · contribs)
15. Z1720 (talk · contribs)

Outgoing arbitrators (eligible to remain on cases opened before 31 December 2024)

1. Guerillero (talk · contribs)
2. Moneytrees (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→present)

Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Front matter

I've just updated the archive box located at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Front matter with this edit. It is something that rarely gets done, and almost always some time after a new archive page has been created. Not sure if it can be done automatically. Ironically, as I was typing this, the archiving bot created the next page along (see the page history for Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 18). So that now needs adding to that archive box. Is this something that clerks would be willing to do, or have on a list of things to keep updated? Carcharoth (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC) PS. There is also a strange stray April section at the bottom of Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 16, I think it was due to manual archiving by an arbitrator to the wrong location.

Archiving of arbitration noticeboard talk page

There are some sections at WT:AC/N (the arbitration noticeboard talk page) that are not archiving properly. I think this is because those posting sections on the talk page are not dating them, and the archive bot is only picking up sections where people comment as that provides a date for the archive bot to latch on to. This has been fixed with this edit, but it might be an idea to document this somewhere so it doesn't get forgotten again. Carcharoth (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It is documented at WP:AC/C/P. I think it was just a small matter of new clerks not knowing how to do everything correctly yet. NW (Talk) 15:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Glkanter

Glkanter initially had a one year ban per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem#Glkanter banned. As noted at an MfD discssion, Arbcom Member Elen of the Roads changed the block settings for Glkanter on 22 June 2012 to indefinite and additionally added a block on the email due to reasons listed in the MfD. I'm not sure where you note these things, but perhaps the bottom of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem needs to be modified to reflect the Arbcom change in blocking of Glkanter and further restriction on email usage. Also, User talk:Glkanter and User:Glkanter should show a link to the arbcom decision, but I don't know what template to use for that. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Question on protocol

Do you guys handle this or can regular admins like me take care of it: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_TrevelyanL85A2? Thanks. MBisanz 01:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like something regular admins can take care of. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Votes on Fæ case

With the seventh vote from David Fuchs this measure should be listed as being passed in the implementation notes, and there are other votes from David that need to be tallied.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I update the notes about once a day, so occasionally it may fall a bit behind. So, don't fret if you see the notes don't take account of some new votes, it just means me or another clerk are busy. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Traditionally (defined as "in 2007 when I was a clerk") we posted the implementation notes near the end of the case, just to make sure everyone was in agreement about what was passing. Over time, we occasionally had an instance where an arbitrator would ask for the notes earlier (to see how first and second choices on alternatives were being tallied, for example), but only where there was a specific reason for them. I'm not sure it's necessary to post implementation notes right after the proposed decision is posted (at which point nothing at all will be passing) and then have to keep updating them. I wonder how other arbs and clerks (and other editors too of course) might feel about this—if the way it's being done now is useful it should continue, but I hate to have extra work that doesn't help much. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly one way or the other about keeping a constant tally; practically speaking though, I think at least creating the template (a somewhat annoying task) at the beginning at bottom is a way to get important work done in non-crunch time and at top a way for both arbitrators and editors generally to visually 'see' the organization of the decision. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The running implementation notes are valuable in that they make obvious the brinksmanship/gamesmanship that has in the past casued "If A then not B otherwise C" voting. Hipocrite (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Since I started clerking cases, the tendancy has moved forward towards more regular updating. I feel that that is a Good Thing™ as it helps clarify voting as it progresses. It is also, for me, easier to keep a track of what is passing and what is not, especially when there are the 'first choice / second choice / only choice / only iff 3.1.1(a)(i) passes' calculations. The most complicated task is the initial calculation and set-up of the template. Updating is an easier task.

That said, all the clerks are volunteers, and if a case clerk wants to update the implementation notes every six hours, I see no reason to prevent them doing so, and if another chooses to wait longer, we should not be overly concerned either. I would absolutely resist any attempt to codify when they should first be calculated, and at what frequency they be updated. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Alex --Guerillero | My Talk 12:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. As I think about it, the change may have come about because the typical case before the Committee is more complicated than it used to be. A lot of cases were resolved through arbitration in earlier years that today would be handled by a single administrator or in an AN/ANI thread, and typically ArbCom gets only the more complicated disputes. When I was clerking, there were times that the implementation notes were something like "everything passes," which obviously didn't require a templated voting chart, etc. Obviously there aren't many cases like that these days (although we did have a few in the early part of 2011). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Username links in case summaries

It's a minor point but the case summary for the Perth decision omits the usual username links. Those links are, IMO, more helpful than the link to Perth, and are usually included (see other noticeboard summaries). Can they be added to this summary? Also, if any arbitrators are reading this, I noted (with others) on the noticeboard talk page thread that the final decision might have been clearer if fleshed out a bit more by the arbitrators before the case closed. It certainly caused some confusion among some admins, as I get the impression they were looking at this decision trying to work out why some admins were desysopped and some not, and it wasn't awfully clear if you hadn't been following the case. Carcharoth (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Notifying parties about proposed decisions

I was looking a bit further into some of the circumstances of the Perth case, and one point that came up at the noticeboard talk page discussion was that kwami appeared to have not being paying close attention to the arbitration case and either wasn't aware of, or wasn't taking seriously, the desysop motion (the desysop motions were added on to the initial proposed decision with the following edits by Courcelles and SilkTork , , . My view is that when initial proposed decisions are expanded like this, arbs and clerks should take care to ensure that any user facing increased or new sanctions are notified). I know this is something that kwami should have noticed himself, but it might have helped if clerks were willing to add notifications to the parties to a case when the proposed decision is posted, and for both arbs and clerks to notify users if new sanctions are posted in the middle of voting on a proposed decision, and also to be aware that one of the parties is conspicious by their absence from the talk page of the proposed decision? It is easy to say that this is just adding more work, but I think it would be reasonable to do this. Would it be possible to consider these points? Carcharoth (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)