Revision as of 14:48, 8 January 2015

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.

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 6 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. Theleekycauldron (talk · contribs)
12. ToBeFree (talk · contribs)
13. Worm That Turned (talk · contribs)
14. Z1720 (talk · contribs)

Inactive

1. Sdrqaz (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→Jun 2012) 7 (June 2012→present)

Re: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Proposed decision

(cross-posting to Hac21)

1) For Proposal #1 I count 4 votes: Worm, Seraphimblade, GorillaWarfare, and T. Canens. NativeForeigner voted for this only as a second choice to #1.2 Also, this would seem to indicate Mr. Fuchs might not support a Jimbo page ban. So it would appear the implementation notes are not correct wrt #1.

2) Why does this section say four votes are needed to close the case? There are nine active arbitrators. —Neotarf (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding 1), 5 votes are a majority, and David Fuchs voted support for remedy 1. In 1.1 the implication was that he was voting against a ban from Jimbo's talk page only not (given he supported 1) from administrative boards in addition to Jimbo's talk page (particularly since he decided not to change his vote after opposing 1.1).

Regarding 2), per arbitration procedures four net votes or an absolute majority (+ 24 hours waiting time) are required to close. In this case (as in almost all cases) four net votes in support and confirmation on the clerks mailing list meant that the case was closed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc parsed my intent properly, although I can see how it would be a bit confusing from my wording; for that I apologize. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 00:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions at Historicity of Jesus

This case request has been sitting at <9/1/0/1> for the last 5 days or so. Is there typically a delay before moving a request into an open case? Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Committee function questions

Greetings, I'm from Thai Misplaced Pages and I'm working on newly-set Arbitration there. I have some questions:

1. Where do the arbitrators discuss the evidence and statements presented to them?
2. Do they ask the parties to the case themselves for more detail or evidence?
3. What will they do if all parties just not follow the schedule? (I've seen that there are due dates here.)

Regards, --ThHorus (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Did I forget to tip someone?

Re Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#DangerousPanda -- reading the criteria atMisplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Deciding_of_requests -- Carcharoth's vote made the count plus four well over 24 hours ago, so there's a case, right? NE Ent 21:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep. And a clerk will open it as soon as he can get to it (we have already asked). Salvio 22:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Casenav}}

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behaviour during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

I have been told that the code at {{Casenav/sandbox}} "box does not render correctly" but no details have been supplied, despite my request.

{{Casenav/sandbox}} is a fix for {{Casenav}}, which has a parameter case name = which is not fully implemented - shortcut, schedule and staff are not working.

The comparison between the two is at {{Casenav/testcases}}, where you can see with a case name set, the sandbox version works correctly, the live version doesn't. (Without a case name both break, because it is not an arbitration case page.)

The same comparison has been on the talk page of the template Template talk:Casenav for 14 days and no-one has identified any problems.

I have also tested the sandbox template with "preview" on 17 arbitration case pages, and have seen no issues. I have even tab-switched between the livepage and the preview, I can still see no difference. I have asked at WP:VP(T), no-one has identified the problem, let alone a solution.

I have also been told that only Arbitration Clerks can change templates used on Arbitration pages.

Therefore I request my colleagues on the Clark Force to advise me if there is an issue that affects their use of this corrected template, specifically how the "box renders" in which case I will fix it. If not I cordially invite them to restore the fixed version of {{Casenav}}

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC).

Rich, we've asked AGK to take a look when he has time as he knows how the arbitration templates work the best of all of us. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Well that's very nice of you. Unfortunately AGK had put the ball in your court:

Please find a clerk, explain what you need fixed, and they will do it for you

He has also said that Casenav is an extremely complicated template, written by me and Xeno over a number of months. (it is actually fairly straightforward, though it has some fundamental flaws) and given that he begrudged 10 minutes to respond to MSJ I find it highly unlikely that he will have the time to look at what is, after all, a very simple change correcting a problem he introduced with edits like this.

Let me make it clear, I do not think this is the responsibility of the clerks, but AGK does. Given that you seem to share my view I will be creating a new {{Edit protected}} request shortly. Of course if anyone does identify this phantom "box renders inconsistently" issue, please let me know and disable the {{Edit protected}} request.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC).

Landmark Worldwide

Could I have your advice please on this section on the PD Talk page for the Landmark case: . Is the behaviour of John Carter and Astynax acceptable? To me it feels more and more like an orchestrated witch hunt or an attempt at baiting. Should I respond further, or have I made my position entirely clear already?

While I'm here, could I also enquire why Lithistman has not been added as a party to this case? I requested that he should be on my submission to the original Request page on 20th September: , and evidence has been provided about his violations on The Evidence and Workshop pages, and yet now I am told that he is not a party and it is too late to add him? DaveApter (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Please drop the stick. You were told it was too late to add another party to the case. I know you're frustrated, but you should let thus go. LHM 13:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@DaveApter: I need to review our Guide to arbitration and check with some more experienced clerks as my first review did not leave me satisfied I could answer the question completely. Working on it now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Please correct list numbering

Currently the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Proposed decision#Carolmooredc topic banned oppose list has incorrect numbering, needs the list format tweaked, ":::" should be ":#:". --Mirokado (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This is now fixed. --Mirokado (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

redact request

Off topic snarky comment and original post. NE Ent 19:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs' request

Please could a clerk take a look at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request and appeal: Interaction ban and see if they can impose some structure. Thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Typo

There is an error in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF#Focus and locus of dispute in which the text reads "the the" rather than "the". If it is usual to correct trivial typos, then this should be done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks. Salvio 09:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Implementation notes for Landmark Worldwide case

Could these be updated please? thanks DaveApter (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much clearer now. But shouldn't 'Nwlaw63 topic banned' be 2-5 rather than 2-4? DaveApter (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

There are only 4 oppose votes on that proposal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Templates and Mobile Site

There seems to be something weird about the arbitration page templates (PD template etc) that means they don't fold down properly when viewed on the mobile site (en.m.wikipedia.org). Most articles collapse so that all text below first-level headings is hidden initially, but this doesn't work on the arbitration case pages. Given how large some of those pages get, it makes navigation on mobile devices very unwieldy. Could someone have a look at it if they get a moment, please? GoldenRing (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Help with request

I have tried to add a request for arbitration but obviously messed it up so I removed it. The proposed content can be found at

Could you let me know what I have done wrong please. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)