This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guerillero (talk | contribs) at 18:32, 19 August 2012 (→Discretionary sanctions appeals: Clarification and Amendment?!?). 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 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 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→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)

I can add the links to the userpages to the announcement on AC/N if you like. It won't hurt. Whilst we have a template for the basic layouts of motions and case closures, there is no fixed MOS, and the redaction is entirely up to the clerk making the announcement. I know that I've added in the userlinks when I've copied the text of the remedies to the announcement, but this is not something that we tell trainees to do. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

From memory, the proposed decisions only use the userlinks at the first appearance on the page. If the remedy being copied to the summary doesn't include those, that might explain it. I do think username links should be in the summary, but I'm neither an arb nor a clerk (just a former arb who still follows things here and there). I'm only making a suggestion here. It's entirely up to the arbs and clerks whether this is done. Carcharoth (talk) 12:25, 22 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)

I'll let other clerks and arbitrators chime in here, but my initial reaction is that if I had been notified by a clerk that I was an involved party in an arbitration case, then I'd be paying close attention. I think a notification for every new sanction is overkill, but there is merit in announcing that the initial proposed decision has been posted. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. A short "This is to inform you that the drafting arbitrator has posted a proposed decision here" couldn't hurt. -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree. I think that the current trend to add more and more notifications to a clerk's duties is starting to turn us into facebook's notification feature. Editors, especially admins, are expected to follow and participate in the cases that they are involved in. If an editor chooses to not participate, it is their loss. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • In the past, such notifications were used (this may be a few years ago now). In this case, with so few parties it is not an onerous task at all (I would have done so myself and urged them to speak up on their own behalf, except I assumed with the numbers speaking up on their behalf that they were aware of it - in all probability, they were aware, but maybe making a conscious choice to stay away).

    To my mind, making sure that the parties to a case are aware of and engaged with the case is an important part of the dual role of arbs and clerks. More important than (say) ensuring the implementation notes are constantly updated during the case (these are really only needed towards the end of a case). Someone from among the arbs and clerks should have noticed that despite the large number of editors posting to the Perth case proposed decision talk page, nothing had been heard of directly from two of the users facing sanctions (namely kwami and Gnangarra).

    Watchlists and formal initial notifications are all very well, but there is no substitute for actual human checks and interaction. It's a bit like the judges and clerks to a court case not noticing that the defendant hasn't actually turned up to the court. When I was an arb, one of the things I looked for was what the parties to a case said and did during the case, and specifically trying to ascertain why they were not saying anything if they were remaining silent. I would hope that is something every arb still does as a matter of course, but that may no longer be the case.

    On clerking duties, clerking and notifications should not be seen as a chore, but part of making sure a case runs smoothly, which includes making sure that lines of communication remain open between parties to a case and the arbitrators, and that the noise made by others does not obscure that. The other point (which argues against mid-case notifications, unless of course someone is added as a party) is that if you only notify of the proposed decision, someone could look at the initial version in which they are only being admonished, accept that, maybe even post some apology for what they did to be admonished, and then go on a wikibreak, only to find that on their return that the sanctions had been upgraded to desysopping and passed in their absence. This is why parties need to follow cases for the entirety of the case, not just parts of it. I do remember (a few years ago) specifically notifying some parties to cases when sanctions were upgraded from something lesser to desysopping (or maybe a ban). It just seemed like the right thing to do at the time. If things are done differently now, fair enough, but I thought the point was worth raising.

    One final point. Guerillero correctly points to the Thumperward finding, but that shouldn't be used as a 'gotcha' or precedent. If that principle and finding applied to this case, a similar set of principles and findings should have been voted on and passed. Overall, maybe it is possible that this case received less attention and care than other cases that were in progress at the same time (I should make clear that this closing point is a criticism of the arbitrators, not the clerks). I'm probably not going to file a request for clarification (as I suggested at the noticeboard talk page) because of what has just been pointed out there, but I do think this case could have been handled better. Carcharoth (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

    • I'm sorry, Carc, but that makes to sense to me. Editors are well notified when a case involving them is opened or when they are added as a party; and if they then choose to ignore the proceedings it's unreasonable to hold their hands. Should that warning also be updated if a remedy now passes or fail, or if an arb proposes an alternative?

      Especially in the case of an administrator – where responsiveness to interrogations about their actions is a requirement – neglecting or refusing to participate and keep an eye on the highest level of formal DR when one is involved is inexcusable, and most certainly should not be accepted as an excuse or defence for anything. — Coren  13:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

      • That seems a reasonable position if you stick to letter of what seems to be required. However, especially when cases can take weeks or months (this was a fairly quick case, but others have been longer), I think it is also reasonable to be aware that a party to a case is not participating and to make at least some token follow-up along the lines of "do you intend to participate in the case? Have you been following the case? Are you going to present any defence?" That at least shows a willingness on the part of arbs to interact with the parties and to notice that a party is not participating (even if many other editors are). What I can't see here is any indication that arbs and clerks were aware that two of the parties had (essentially) left the building, or were in another part of the building, at the time the proposed decision was posted.

        Gnangarra in particular didn't edit from 7 July until 21 July; Kwami edited every day in the same period but ignored the case. They both ignored the case, but in different ways. If any arbs and clerks are willing to say so, did they actually notice this or not? I can't see any on-wiki evidence that this was noticed. (I've said that I completely missed this, mainly due to following the impassioned pleas from other editors, so it's possible that everyone else missed it as well). Sure, arbs and clerks can say it is not their responsibility to be aware of this, but that seems to be backing away from the issue. If I had become aware that two of the parties were essentially absent, I'd have said something, and I hope others would have as well. It's basic human courtesy. It's not needed, but I'd hope some would do it anyway.

        There is also the case where a party to a case (maybe saying they will be away at some point over the following weeks, or busy at work in the coming week, or something like that) may ask the clerks to notify them on their talk page or by e-mail when the proposed decision is posted. I would hope clerks would agree to do that, or at least have some standard response to that that isn't along the lines of "that's not in my job description". I would myself suggest that if a party to a case wants to have personal notification served about the posting of a proposed decision, that they ask the drafting arbitrator on their talk page. That would be safest all round. Maybe also add something to the notification about a case saying that this is the only formal notification that will be left, and it is up to parties to cases to participate in and follow the cases themselves? Carcharoth (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Carc, Kwami was editing and Gnangarra at no time contacted to say he was going to be away from his computer. If someone makes the clerks aware that they will be away, cases can be extended, revised deadlines set, all sorts of things done - as you already know. The editor in question has to pipe up and say something though. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but that completely avoids my question. I've yet to find an arb or clerk willing to say whether they were even aware that kwami and Gnangarra were avoiding the case. It becomes obvious when you look at their contributions, but I don't get the feeling any arbs or clerks bothered to check this sort of thing. It's not required, but it is something I would have done. Usually, in each iteration of arbs and clerks, you do find someone willing to take the time to check that sort of thing. Carcharoth (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"I've yet to find an arb or clerk willing to say": seriously, it has not even been 24 hours since your first post. I'm fairly sure that few of us have even noticed this thread, let alone had time to respond. Did I notice? No. Was I case clerk? No. Was I busy with my own case? Yes. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I should wait longer to see if any arbs or clerks active on this case (I thought the caveat was too obvious to add) are willing to say anything. Apologies for that. Carcharoth (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• When a case is opened, do not the "watchlist this page" links work for everyone? As an arb, I use them on every case. I would expect a party to use all four on at least one case. At the very least, watchlisting a proposed decision is prudent. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • And, these pages are updated frequently so it should shoot up right to the top. -- Lord Roem (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Responding to all of the above (including the ill-considered melodramatic statement by Coren): while some say it is "unreasonable to hold their hands", I can recall one case in 2009 where a clerk was being very helpful notifying not just parties, but workshop participants that a proposed decision is up for voting. He also gave the target date in his notification. That also involved an administrator who ended up desysopped, and although I was a non-party participant, I appreciated the notification at the time (and I'm pretty sure parties were appreciative too). But in this case, I'm not sure it would have amounted to much - mainly due to the circumstances I note below.
    • I think the circumstances of this case speak for themselves. Proposals were placed in the workshop by drafters; these received comments from some arbitrators, parties, and others. But one of the arbitrators, Courcelles, avoided participating in the workshop and chose to post 2 significant proposals (for desysopping) on the PD which were (apparently) neither contemplated by the drafter nor commented on by the Community at the workshop (in fact, at the time, no user from the Community made the proposal on the workshop which should have said something). Somehow, I think the Community would sooner find that what this arbitrator did was inexcusable, rather than the party's choice to avoid participating in the drama-filled arbitration at all. Another arbitrator already received a criticism on their talk page about one of the proposals they posted post-workshop with a view of getting another surprise desysop remedy to stick, so I don't think those details need to be restated again. Of course, I do agree that administrators must be prepared to be responsive when questions and comments are directed to them - but I do not think the requirement is so unreasonably exhaustive as to proposals in this context, unless the person(s) making proposals personally request for their input on specific proposals or points. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
      • That is a very good point. Desysop (and ban) remedies should be discussed on the workshop prior to the proposed decision being posted. In this case it seems it was 'obvious' to some arbitrators that desysopping was on the table. If it had been raised in the workshop, some of the community disquiet at the remedies might have been aired earlier, and might have led to a more considered decision. There is a tendency for the workshop to just be a discussion of prinicples and findings, with arbitrators wanting to reserve the remedies for the actual proposed decision, but there should maybe be some push back against that. But first, you would have to work out what to do about arbitrators who (somewhat understandably) just ignore the workshop pages altogether as 'hopeless' (I agree they are sometimes hopeless, but the answer is to engage on them, not ignore them). I would also question why the drafter posted the decision and then stepped back and let others do the 'dirty work' of posting the desysop proposals. Would have been better to post them as part of the initial proposed decision. Also, would have been nice to have specific questions directed at the parties to the case, and notices left on their talk pages, and then seen if they would have just ignored that. Carcharoth (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Apologies to the clerks for going off on a tangent on issues more related to the duties of arbitrators, maybe this part of the discussion should resume back at the arbitration noticeboard talk page?
        • Probably... :) -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
        • To be fair, there were two drafters. One of the drafters posted a proposed decision on the workshop page (which was later the initial proposed decision posted on the PD page). If any other arb wanted to make a different proposal like desysop or banning, he/she should have made such proposal in his/her section in the workshop onwiki. As there was no indication to this effect, I wouldn't direct the question to the drafter who posted the initial PD. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Was the admin put on notice that an desysop motion was possible? For instance, was this mentioned in the Workshop so that they would have chance to present defenses or mitigating circumstances? Nothing in arbitration should be a surprise. If something pops up out of the blue late in the process when the accused has no chance to respond, that is problematic. A clerk leaving a talk page message notifying them isn't really sufficient, because it's only given them a chance to give input after arbitrators have mostly made up their minds. Jehochman 01:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

All three admins should arguably have realised that they might face desysop motions, but two ignored the case. One went on wikibreak. Another just got on with editing. The initial proposed decision only had admonishments. The desysop motions were added later (see the diffs I gave above). A mini-petition on the proposed decision talk page seemed to sway enough arbs to result in two of the desysop motions not passing, but the third one did. That happened to be the admin who ignored the case while still editing (the admin who went on a break has since resumed editing). No notification of the desysop motions were given (see reasons articulated above) and it was a surprise to the admin that got desysopped (kwamikagami), as can be seen here. Some of the more cynical might not believe some of that, but I would AGF and come to the conclusion that something did go wrong here and things could be done better in future. If you (Jehochman) haven't been following the case, it is worth taking a look as someone with no preconceptions to see what you think of how the various aspects were handled and whether you agree with my summary above and the points raised here and elsewhere by others (such as at the WP:AC/N thread). Carcharoth (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the case when it opened, but did not follow because it seemed like a big dispute about nothing. It was a great opportunity to pour tea and remind experienced editors to set a better example for others, rather than letting emotions take charge.

We have no idea whether the admins under investigation were watching the case or not. Sometimes it is wise to remain quiet when there is nothing to add to the discussion. (I've been doing this myself. Notice how little I've been commenting lately, thought I still look at Misplaced Pages daily.) If the case was meandering along toward a result of admonishments, perhaps the admins felt that was a proper result and chose to remain silent. When the desysop motions suddenly appeared on the proposed decision, that changed things, but too late. Those motions should have been mooted on the workshop pages. Checking over those pages now, I see no serious desysop proposals related to the three admins who are mentioned in the decision. That strikes me as odd. The workshop should be a superset of what appears on the proposed decision page.

I think the drafting arbitrators created a surprise, and the voting arbitrators, except Newyorkbrad, went along uncritically. It would have been better to restrict any final sanctions to what was actually discussed with the parties and the community in the workshop. If desysopping were necessary, somebody would have proposed it in the workshop. Jehochman 12:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Jehochman, the proposed decision that I originally posted included admonishments, but didn't contain any desyop proposals, these were added later by another arbitrator. PhilKnight (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

... and not the secondary drafter, either. Jclemens (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I see. Who threw the curveball or screwball as the case may be? Why did everybody go along with this remedy without prior discussion? Wouldn't it have been better to put this possible outcome on the table, instead of saving it for a last minute ambush? Jehochman 19:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Jehochman, see the very first post I made in this thread. I give the diffs there where Courcelles and Silktork add the additional proposed sanctions. To be fair, this sort of lightweight draft proposed decision, followed by beefing it up or watering it down (if a hardline arb drafted the decision) as other arbs have their say, is the way that cases were done in my time as well. It is a way to iterate towards a proposed decision that all arbs can agree on. The downside being that it can be hard for parties following the case to understand or see the justification, as they (understandably) hope that arbs are looking at the evidence primarily, rather than jockeying around a hard to discern line in the sand (a campaign line in the sand for some arbs, according to some comments that were made on the proposed decision talk page). My gripe comes from the fact that if this sort of drafting is to be done on the proposed decision, the arbs should make sure that all the parties are present and correct to watch this jockeying around, rather than assuming the parties are watching (maybe some arbs don't really care if the parties are present or not). It turns out that one of the parties to the case had been on a break for several weeks (Gnangarra), and another party to the case (Kwamikagami) was not paying close attention (never posted to the case pages except to make an initial statement at the acceptance stage), but was busy editing this encyclopedia. Another party was fully engaged (JHunterJ) and another posted a section on the talk page titled 'The Horror' (Deacon of Pndapetzim). To be fair, there was a lot of noise from other editors that may have obscured the facts about the presence or absence of the actual parties to the case. Carcharoth (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Noise at arbitration is the norm. Carcharoth, had Kwamikagami been notified somehow, what would they have done differently? Might they have appeared and said, "I'm so sorry for this mistake, I won't let it happen again?" Would that have been enough to resolve concerns for a few of the arbitrators? Jehochman 00:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. We will never know for sure. What we do know is that two of the parties were not participating and I've yet to see any sign that any of the arbs noticed this. The normal thing to do in such cases is to go to their talk page and ask them (in kwami's case as he was actively editing) if they intend to say anything on the case pages. And in Gnangarra's case to say "I see you are on a wikibreak...." (though the follow-up there is more difficult, as the reason for the wikibreak is not clear and might be a private matter). What is not normal is just to shrug and mentally think 'don't care if they aren't going to say anything, makes no difference to me'. It goes right to heart of what it means to dispense justice fairly. I prefer to think that all the arbs just failed to notice, rather than noticed and didn't care. Now, having said this, I may have missed some sign that kwami or Gnangarra were participating in or aware of the progress of the case. Were there e-mails? All I do know is that there were cases when I was an arbitrator where we explicitly left notifications (both on talk pages and by e-mail) that desysop and/or ban motions had been proposed. As I said (way above), that may no longer be the norm, but at the least the initial case notifications should be reworded with strong language that says parties to cases should follow cases once they have opened as they won't get any other formal notifications and could face anything up to and including a desysop and/or ban. That is a compromise position that I hope arbs and clerks may agree to follow in future cases. Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing new initial notifications to that effect. They haven't been updated in a long time, so an overhaul wouldn't be a bad idea. -- Lord Roem (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions appeals

Do they go at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case or Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment? I know someone would just move it to the right place, but it's simpler just to get it right first time. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Appeals of discretionary sanctions are usually handled on the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. PhilKnight (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm choosing to appeal direct to the Committee, as I'm entitled to. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

So does anyone want to tell me where it needs to be posted, or shall I just choose myself? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 18:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure ONiH but you might need to do it via email to the ban appeals list: arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org. Or to the committee directly (the details are all at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee)--Cailil 18:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure. I think that email would be the best place; if you would like your request to stay on wiki, I think that Clarification and Amendment would be a better location. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)