This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alanyst (talk | contribs) at 13:30, 22 March 2011 (→Withdraw Duke53 request: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Noticeboard

Clerks' 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.

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

None, currently.

Open Cases

All work relating to Arbitration cases already opened

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)

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).

• I should be considered inactive for all matters until March 15, unless otherwise specified or I actually show up to make a comment on it. That includes cases, amendment requests and clarification requests that are currently open. Thanks! Risker (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Long term projects

• Merge some content of WP:AC/C/P into the arbitrators' procedures guide, per Kirill. AGK 20:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Waiving Notification

Hi. I'd like to waive all future notification about attempted whatevers to Climate Change. How can I go about getting off the spam-list? Hipocrite (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll just have to delete them. Everyone involved needs to be made aware of any potential changes. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"missed something" - is there a boat adrift?

I've recently felt a need to review the wording of CC discretionary sanctions and noticed that internal links referencing the anchor of do not appear to resolve correctly, i.e. do nothing. At least two blue-links, "Climate change topic, broadly construed" and "area of conflict" seem to show this (non-)behaviour. Is that just something with my browser? Thanks. Franamax (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The loose links should probably point to the "Locus of dispute" section in Findings. Check with whoever drafted that remedy. --TS 03:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that is probably right. We didn't have a specific "scope of dispute" or "area of conflict" paragraph in this decision, so finding 1 is as sensible a place to point it to as any. Or perhaps just take out the link. As Tony suggests, please check with my colleague who drafted that paragraph. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

It's probably time for someone to remove most of the threads on this page, especially ones that relate to specific cases that were closed awhile ago. Threads that are of long-term interest should be archived; ones relating to routine administrative coordination by the clerks can simply be deleted. I'll be happy to do this myself, but in the first instance one of the Clerks probably should if someone has time. This will make it easier to find new announcements and requests. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops?

I attempted to revdel personal info on the main requests for arbitration page earlier and got very wierd results (and no deleted rev). When I went to check the history from a non-logged-in browser it showed no article history for the requests page since August.

My bad, or just wierd output and nothing really happened? I'm confused... If someone else can confirm what the situation is I would appreciate it. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly which page is this? Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think GWH meant to do it to the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case page, since that's the page which currently handles new arbitration requests. The revision to be deleted is probably this one. 74.101.118.239 (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've revdeleted the text in the above diff. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Could a Clerk email me, please, regarding Oversight

I just want to check on protocol. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC) nb. not involving Shakespeare Authorship Question case!! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

LHVU, that question probably belongs on Functionaries-L or Oversight-L. Arbcom clerks don't have any special knowledge about oversight protocols, even in relation to cases. Risker (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Do any of us even have the oversight tool :P? Yeah, funct-l with that one, LHvU. We just do the paperwork! AGK 00:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Coanda request

It's a bit late for this (request appears heading for acceptance, unfortunately) but I'd like to add the following statement to the pending request about Coanda 1910. Could a clerk proxy it? Thanks.

Statement of mostly-uninvolved 71.141.88.54

Arbcom should decline for now. Andy Dingley, Fut Perf, Binksternet, and Nimbus227 all have it about right. I haven't edited the article myself, but I made some editorial comments on its talk page and tried to discuss things with Lsorin a while back, so I'm almost but not entirely uninvolved. Lsorin is a knowledgeable editor who has made some nice contributions to the article, including uploading the photo of the Coanda-1910 replica at the military museum in Bucharest. Unfortunately he seems afflicted with rather bad, apparently nationalism-inspired deafness (Coanda is a Romanian hero, who also has a fringe following reminiscent of Nikola Tesla) about consensus and about WP dispute resolution. Yes, there are some sources claiming the Coanda 1910 was the first jet, but there are lots of otherwise-comprehensive sources making no mention of it at all, leading to an editorial consensus (except for Lsorin) that the claim is at best questionable. The relative scarcity of authoritative sources to contradict the dubious sources is not too uncommon a situation with fringe claims. IIRC there was a content RFC but there hasn't been a user conduct RFC, and I'd like to imagine that mediation or a chat with an experienced uninvolved editor might help more than arbitration. At worst, community and/or admin action can handle it. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done. NW (Talk) 05:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Vote tally discrepancy

Between Discussion of minority views (12-0-2) and Implementation note (12-1-0). Tom Reedy (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that X! meant to put 1 vote into the Abstain column but accidentally put it into the oppose. Only broad "passing or not" is really important at this stage, I would think. It should however be more accurately calculated when the decision is closed. Thanks for bringing this up! NW (Talk) 16:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Missing principles in SAQ notes

13 and #14 here are not yet in the implementation notes. I'm guessing you're just waiting for a final vote to be tallied? Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm recused from the case, but I imagine that's what it is. NW (Talk) 18:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Jack Merridew

I've posted a rather malformed request. I've also poked a few arb talk pages. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Were you being POINTy or lazy in not laying your request out in a useful format or in the usual way? If it was neither of those, what's the deal here? In any case, you want amendment requests - not case requests; and you also want to follow the instructions on request format! AGK 15:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Frustrated with the endless 'process' is more like it. I don't know what case would be amended, it's just a motion. Anyway, I expect I should wait for replies. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Come climb Reichstag, little Gold Hat! bishzilla _ROARR!! 20:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC).

Oh, I'm good at ignoring rulz ;) Gold Hat (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

← Jack, another option would just be emailing ArbCom directly. Tiptoety 20:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

well, I've emailed several individual arbs. Part of the problem here is that many of the arbs that know the whole story are either now former arbs, or recused. This has gone on too long, and I've had to bring the n00bz up to speed. David 20:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

see also

+autopatrolled per db query

Merridew (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this bunch the only restrictions you're still under? No lurking 'Jack Merridew can only edit on Tuesdays while standing in a bucket of dingos' kidneys' anywhere? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

ya, and possibly

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick#Moby Dick banned from certain articles

but Rlevse told me last year that no one cared anymore and to go for it. I still need to re-read Giles Milton#Paradise Lost: Smyrna 1922

You'll note that I've used transclusion to erase the distinction between the accounts; they share userpages and editnotices. Can we please lift all restrictions, and get on with things? This was really only supposed to be for another year, and then they should have evaporated. Cheers, Gold Hat (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Amusing, but I think one Jack is quite enough for now :). AGK 20:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

one too many ;) Gold Hat (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano

The Arbitration Committee clerks would like to welcome Salvio giuliano to the clerk team! NW (Talk) 19:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome aboard! I'll look forward to working with you. Risker (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

How do I become a clerk?

I would like to become a clerk but I don't know how. I can get on 2:30 p.m PT to 7:00 p.m PT on weekdays and 3:00 p.m PT to 8:00 p.m PT on Friday and 12:00 p.m PT to 8:30 p.m PT.--Bellsprout723d (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are looking for Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Clerks Hasteur (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hasteur, this is the right spot. NW (Talk) 02:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Bellsprout, we generally expect the clerks to have a wider range of experience than you do—at least several months and several thousand edits more than you currently have. At this stage, I don't believe that you would be ready to be a clerk. Thanks for your enthusiasm though! Perhaps you would want to try vandal-fighting, or simply building up an article? It might be a better way to start off your Misplaced Pages career? NW (Talk) 02:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh,ok thanks.I will try again in about August. Thanks for telling me!--Bellsprout723d (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Interim motion

This motion is now passing, as such I will enact it no earlier than 04:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC). Tiptoety 04:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrators on the RH&E case

Hi... fyi, according to the PD page for the RH&E case, there is one recused arb. According to the PD talk page there are two recused arbs. It should be three, as Elen and CHL recused at the request stage, and Coren has recused since. Might be worth updating.  :) EdChem (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Xeno got to it. NW (Talk) 16:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Please update the Implementation notes for the Monty Hall problem

Please update section Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem/Proposed decision#Implementation notes. Elen of the Roads is calling for a vote to close, but the last update by an official clerk (incidentally not one assigned to the case!) is from before the last votes were cast. It seems to me that "3.1) Rick Block is topic banned ..." has passed, with 7 support votes and 2 abstentions. In view of the complexity of some items (first choice, second choice, ...) it wouldn't hurt to double- or triple-check everything.  --Lambiam 00:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

3 currently has more "first choices" than 3.1, which is why it is passing instead of 3.1. But I have gone through it again, and will try to do so roughly every other day or so until the case closes. NW (Talk) 02:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw Duke53 request

Since it looks like the Duke53 request is not going to be accepted, and there has been useful feedback from the arbitrators regarding how to resolve the matter, and there are larger and more complicated cases that have arrived, and in the interest of not occupying any more of the committee's attention, I'd like to withdraw my request for arbitration at this time. I'll open an RfC/U instead. Thanks, alanyst 13:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)