This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

(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^{( talk)} 00:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Greetings, I'm from Thai Wikipedia 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)

Re Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#DangerousPanda -- reading the criteria at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Deciding_of_requests -- Carcharoth's vote [2] 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 ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
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 Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk 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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior 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).

Could I have your advice please on this section on the PD Talk page for the Landmark case: [3]. 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: [4], 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 ^{ask me a question} 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)

Currently the Wikipedia: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)

Off topic snarky comment [5] and original post. NE Ent 19:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Please could a clerk take a look at Wikipedia: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)

There is an error in Wikipedia: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 ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 [6]

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

This is a content dispute. A content dispute Martin has failed to achieve consensus in, and has been forum shopping around for quite some time. There really is no place for Arbcom in this, as it is out of their remit. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 16:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It is nothing of the sort. It is about the behaviour of a group of editors. But let us let Arbcom decide if they want to take it. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 16:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You mean that they disagree with you. Because when you boil it down to it, that's what you've been complaining about the most. that they "won't accept a compromise" that you proposed, and which seems to basically boil down to giving you exactly what you want. That they "are quoting an essay as consensus" and having others agree that's a good statement of consensus. That they object to your proposed changes and give reasons that you don't like. That neither your talk page arguments, your RFCs, your village pump posts, your attempts to change guidelines - none of them have been successful at convincing anyone, and you really want to force your opinions through. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 18:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Let us let Arbcom decide if they want to take the case on. You can put your side to them. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Begoon has been insulting me on the arbitration pages and is now making false statements about me. [7] The case is not about me, nor is the finding that is under discussion. Begoon is inserting personal attacks whenever I try to comment. This derails the conversation and prevents me from having a substantial discussion about the issues. Could one of you please hat the irrelevant tangent and ask Begoon to keep the discussion on topic, and to refrain from unseemly commentary about other editors (such as me) that has no bearing on the case? Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 18:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman, I've left them a message and I'll keep an eye. It's usually better not to hat discussions yourself but to ask a clerk to do it (either here or by email) so that things like this don't happen. Thanks, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 23:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This matter has been fully resolved. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 01:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The main WP:ARBCOM#BASC page needs to be updated with the current BASC membership (found at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee/About). I'd do it myself as it is a very simple thing, but I know clerks generally prefer to be the sole editors of pages within ArbCom-space. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 18:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just changed it to a link to the /About page rather than duplicating the content. Thanks, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 23:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The 'Ryulong Remedy Calculation' is in error and Remedy 5.3 should be passing. As R5.5 is failing, Courcelles has altered his/her preference to 5.3, and Guerillero's package vote for 5.1, 5.4, and 5.5 is invalidated, reverting to his/her last choice vote to support 5.3. Counting all distributed votes, this gives 7 supporting, which giving DGG's abstention is a majority. NativeForeigner may also be supporting, his comment is unclear and Courcelles requested clarification, but his support is not necessary for this remedy to pass. 192.249.132.237 ( talk) 01:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Been addressed, not sure if as a result of seeing this comment or not. Regardless, thanks! 192.249.132.237 ( talk) 02:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Proposed decision#Motion to close reads

" The Clerks will close the case immediately if there is an absolute majority voting to close the case or all proposals pass unanimously, otherwise it will be closed 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast. "

but Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Motions to close reads

"A final consideration period of at least 24 hours will usually elapse between the casting of the fourth net vote to close the case and the implementation of any remedies. However, closure may be fast-tracked if (i) all clauses pass unanimously or (ii) an absolute majority vote in the motion to do so. "

Are the clerks required to immediately close as soon as there is a a majority, as the first quote above seems to imply, or are they allowed to close immediately or to wait up to 24 hours (or longer?), as the second quote above seems to imply?

Give the fact that arbitrators occasionally change their close votes based on arguments by other arbitrators, I would argue for the later interpretation. Also, the first interpretation seems like it would require the clerks to monitor the page 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It's very clear. It will close 24 hours after the 4th net vote unless an impetus to fast track occurs. There are two ways to fast track, majority voting to close or unanimous passing of all clauses. When the majority votes to close, the fast track clause is empowered and the case closes immediately. There is no reason to wait 24 hours. Ries42 ( talk) 17:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I already know your opinion on the question at hand. It's why I asked the above question. I am looking for an answer from a clerk or arbitrator. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

We're not required to close the case at any point, the first quote is just the easiest and simplest wording. In this instance the case may be closed at any point after the 8th vote as there is no required waiting period. So rather than waiting 24 from the 8th vote, after checking with arbitrators on the clerks mailing list (who did ask for some time rather and an immediate close), it'll be closed in the next few hours. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 22:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware that "majority vote" could trigger a case closure... it apparently doesn't happen that often. -- Rs chen 7754 02:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! IMO the way things are being handled now works fine. I haven't seen any serious complaints by arbs, admins, or establised editors about closures being premature or overly delayed. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

has not been updated since 21 May 2014‎. Do the clerks want to update this? I know the clerks don't generally want non-clerks editing in ArbCom space, so I haven't fixed it myself, so does a clerk want to? Otherwise, it could probably just be deleted, seeing it's low traffic. Cheers, -- L235 ( talk) Ping when replying 23:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The clerks aren't part of BASC so we don't know what they discuss on their mailing list and generally don't have anything to do with successful appeals (except if a case needs to be amended or a new sanction recorded at WP:EDR. I'll ping the arbs on BASC at the moment and see if they want to update, mark as historical, etc. @ AGK, Euryalus, Seraphimblade, and Thryduulf:. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Best to mark historical if it remains unused after a few more months. AGK [•] 23:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I've noted there is variance in whether the block for an editor sitebanned as a result of case allows, or doesn't allow talk page access. Not terribly important -- I'd lean towards "allow" so they can post the appeal after the allotted time passes -- but moving forward ya'll should be consistent for appearances sake. NE Ent 16:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I also lean towards allow. On 23 April 2014 (after my 1-year waiting period), I had to contact an administrator while logged-out, in order to get my talkpage privillages restored to seek reinstatement. Note: In my case, my talkpage privillages were revoked 2-weeks after my site-ban kicked in. GoodDay ( talk) 17:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on any particular case, though I agree it should be consistent. As a general rule, I would say there's no harm in allowing it as long as it isn't abused, but I can see the rationale for disallowing it as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

We had a quick discussion about it on clerks-l before the GamerGate case and decided on removing talk page access as standard practice for ArbCom imposed bans as the banning policy states that talk page access is "usually not allowed" and may only be used for appeals. As ArbCom only accepts appeals (for their site bans) by email there is no reason to depart from the "usually not allowed" given that the user in question wouldn't be able to use it anyway. Also, another (though lesser reason) is that talk page access is usually removed after a month or two of controversy which links back into the reason they were banned and what the talk page of a banned user can be used for. I'll add a note about it to the clerks procedures for consistency. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ GoodDay: so discussion says central. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Understood. GoodDay ( talk) 00:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I brought this to Hell in a Bucket's attention, [8] but he seems to have missed it. Can you remove his comments from Clarification request: Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling that aren't to-do with that section? Lightbreather ( talk) 00:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I purposedly ignored you. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 15:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay I've a question a piece to resolve this:

• @ Lightbreather: What's the problem with the statement in the Clarification request: Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling section?
• @ Hell in a Bucket: What's the purpose of your statement in the Clarification request: Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling section, that is, is there a reason it needs to be there?

Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc, it's not about the Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling case. Lightbreather ( talk) 00:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It was a response to a misplaced post by Lightbreather. If you think you want to remove it go ahead. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 07:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

On the evidence page for the infoboxes review case it states the evidence is due by 10 February. On the arbcom open tasks template it says 6 February. On the template it gives a proposed decision target date of 13 February, but I can't see any statement on the PD page or its talk about whether that is based on the 6 or 10 February evidence closing dates. I'm recused from this case so cannot clarify anything myself. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Evidence is the 10th, I'm targeting the 17th for a PD. Courcelles 08:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Despite it being well into 11 February, edits continues to be made to the Evidence page, including entirely new evidence sections by a number of editors. Could we get revised dates and/or a cleanup and lock on there? It feels like the evidence phase will continue forever without some arb or clerk action. // coldacid ( talk| contrib) 21:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Suspended case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Toddst1 is ready to be closed per the condition(s) set by the committee motion [9]. NE Ent 00:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@ NE Ent: Thanks, we're discussing that on the clerks mailing list and should be done soon. Cheers, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 01:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc closed an AE request here. [10]. He correctly cites that filer isn't supposed to be filing AE requests. That same filer also filed an AE request based on a comment made in that closed request. [11]. That is the only diff presented as evidence of misconduct. I am not sure that Callanecc was aware that the filer was the same or that the only evidence presented was a comment in a turned away AE request. The comment the filer found offensive was an affirmation that the AE request was improper. This is the statement in AE [12] that the filer used as his evidence for sanctions. It seems that the same logic used by Timotheus_Canens and EdJohnston would apply to both. It also doesn't seem proper to reward the filer for multiple AE requests made during his topic ban especially since the volume of requests (all created by the original filer) is being cited as a reason for sanctions. Those accused have no say in the volume of requests filed by their accuser. This AE request should be closed for the same procedural reasons as the one before it. -- DHeyward ( talk) 23:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Just fixing the ping of Callanecc. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 00:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Reason I didn't close the second one (about you) was because discussion had already taken place regarding a possible sanction and closing something while that's happening seems like bad form (especially given that the report itself is serving more as a catalyst than evidence). I'll also I note that I closed it as an admin saying you can't make that request here, but given I was arb space you can make it to the clerks. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries. The appropriate comments have been made. It would be my stance that the case would need to be made from scratch with evidence that didn't consist of a single diff from a TBanned editor citing another AE request he improperly filed. As you said, it was a catalyst, not evidence, and I think it reflects frustration with the topic rather than a solution. Had his AE request been closed on procedure more quickly, he would not have had my diff to report and in hindsight I wouldn't have commented if I knew it was a procedure close. I did not know when the hat changes from clerk to admin and your talk page indicated you may be busy so I brought it here for eyeballs that would know the process points made in the other AE request. Everything about the request was arb space including the evidence of editor behavior which you said in your closing statement should be mailed to clerks rather than filing AE request. -- DHeyward ( talk) 04:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Would a clerk please comment on this AN/I thread? Much obliged, RGloucester — ☎ 20:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Not actually required, it's not really in doubt ... NE Ent 20:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, of course, but the editor in question requires the voice of authority to persuade him to see reason. RGloucester — ☎ 20:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

On [ | this page ] at the top, there's an error near the top that reads:

For this case there are active arbitrators, Expression error: Unexpected != operator so Expression error: Unexpected / operator support or oppose votes are a majority. Expression error: Unexpected mod operator

I already know it's the Casenav template at the top of the page, and I know it's acting up because it sees no arbs or clerks. It could be corrected by temporarily removing the header until it's ready to be filled in. I haven't touch it, per the note on the page, but just thought I'd bring it to your attention. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 16:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Note to clerks: if templates throwing errors at first because no arbs and/or clerks have been added yet, one easy workaround is to fill them in with at least one dummy user upon creation. In most cases User:Example will work just fine for this purpose. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 say "<11/0/0/0>" when DGG, Euryalus and AGK are on record as opposing it? I see that below that there was a motion, but the motion has 10 accept votes, not 11. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a direct copy and paste from the request page, just like statements we don't change what's written as it's kept as a 'historical record'. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah well, it doesn't affect me so I don't care one way or the other, but when there is a break in the arbcom workload you really ought to consider having a virtual sit down on your mailing list and discussing the fact that your copying and pasting puts all sorts of things on arbcom pages that simply are not true. Unwatching this page now. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee clerk team is currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors (adminship not needed) 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 Wikipedia 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-llists.wikimedia.org if you are interested in becoming a clerk, and a clerk will reply with an acknowledgement of your message and we will get back to you with some questions. If you have any questions you'd like an answer to before applying please feel free to ask on the clerks noticeboard or any current clerk.

For the Arbitration Committee clerks, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 08:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Um, is there some reason you've put the "discuss this" text in this, the section that it links to? John Carter ( talk) 23:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Removed. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason for initially commenting was, basically, I myself kinda doubt that I would be a reasonable candidate, and, honestly, I think I probably mouth off too often around arbitration cases to be much use, but I wouldn't mind trying to do some work in the area if anyone thought it would help, maybe as a kind of "reservist". John Carter ( talk) 00:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi John, if you'd like to apply please send an email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org so we can keep all the applications in one place. Thanks, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I did sent in an e-mail on 10th Feb and got a reply from bounces which means that it was sent successfully. But, I haven't received a reply yet, is it still stuck up for moderation or is it being considered. Since, I haven't received a reply, I deduce that nothing has yet been decided. With thanks. -- QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 15:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Callanecc: Anyone there? -- QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 09:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi QEDK could you please send it again? I'm having no luck finding it. Thanks, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Callanecc, I've resent it. -- QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 11:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, received this time. Give us a week or two to discuss. Regards, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the response! -- QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason why some former AC clerks names are in bold while others are not? At first I thought it indicated clerks who went on to serve on the arbitration committee but that doesn't seem to be the reason. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be because the {{ Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/c}} template is being used, which allows timezone information to be stored. The rest are using {{ user6b}}, which does not have a timezone parameter, and also does not render the usernames in bold. I don't believe the bold is intended to indicate any difference otherwise. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the template has been fixed. Thanks to NE Ent who did some cleaning up on AC pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused; this doesn't LOOK stricken to me, but this says it was stricken. WT??? ISTM this should definitely be stricken! Please make it so and/or explain why it isn't currently stricken.-- Elvey^{( t• c)} 02:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Elvey: The motion was proposed but did not receive the required six supporting votes, and so was not enacted. -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 03:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, ' L235. Then why does it say "stricken"? Should that title not be changed? It's not clear to me where you moved the discussion from.-- Elvey^{( t• c)} 04:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Elvey: The motion which did not pass says that the principle is to be stricken. At the request of the ArbCom, on 2 March 2015, I moved the discussion from WP:ARCA. Hope this is satisfactory. Thanks, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 11:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

For future announcements of ArbCom decisions on AN/ANI, I think it might be better to make the "discuss this" link look like this:

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Thread title goes here

Instead of this:

Discuss this

Maybe 4 or 5 times, I've seen people start a discussion (admittedly seldom productive) at AN/ANI immediately under the "discuss this" link, and I've been told by two people that they thought it was a header, not a link to a discussion page. You might even consider using the same format on the AC Noticeboard itself, since I am guessing all three announcements use the same standard template somewhere. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Floquenbeam: You have a good point, I completly agree that there is (a lot of) confusion on where discussion is supposed to go; earlier today I had to comment at AN to say that discussion should happen at the noticeboard talk. However, I'm pretty sure there's a bot that recognizes the Discuss this links and replaces them with links to the archive, so I'm not sure how feasible it would be to implement. I'm going to look for that bot again; if I don't comment again within about 24 hours please ping me again. -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 21:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

ping NE Ent 11:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Floquenbeam: Goodness, I've forgotten to respond to this for a long time. Anomie, how feasable would it be to change the bot to recognize the format above? If it's possible to program, I'll bring it up on the clerks mailing list. Thanks! -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 04:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Easy to do, just let me know when the format is final. We'd probably want the bot to change "Discuss this at:" to "Archived discussion:" or I wouldn't have to do anything, since it will already update a link like that. Anomie ⚔ 10:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@ L235: I'd forgotten too. No worries, it was just an idea, I don't have any emotional investment in the outcome. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Floquenbeam: I've left a note at clerks-l about this, and without objection from an arb or clerk will change the documentation and let Anomie know. Uninteresting side note, we actually don't have a "standard template" for this stuff, at least not in the sense of a Mediawiki template; instead, we have a bunch of documentation at WP:AC/CP, which makes it easier for not-super-technical clerks to update, and we literally copy-paste when we cross-post to the different noticeboards. But that's probably just jibber jabber to you :) Cheers, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 17:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a great suggestion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Anomie: Can you change the format to the following:

: Discuss this at: '''[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Thread title]]'''

turns into:

: Archived discussion at: '''[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive number#Thread title'''

Thanks. For the clerks -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 22:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

That should do it. Please keep an eye on it and let me know if it doesn't do it right once one of these new-format links is archived. Anomie ⚔ 00:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The text up top says:

Most comments here are not archived as they concern simple daily case administration and maintenance issues; rather they will be cleared by a Clerk when they become stale. (This Noticeboard often operates as more of a virtual whiteboard for co-ordination purposes than a formal discussion page.) Discussions of note, however, or of historical interest, are archived: see archives I and II.

However, there is an archive box in the top-right of the discussion areas with another set of archives, 1 through 7. I'm not sure whether these two sets of archives (those for WT:AC/C and those for WT:AC/CN) need to be connected somehow now that there is only one "clerk discussion place", but two points needs to be adressed:

1. If we do archive discussions (which seems to be the case judging from Archive 7 in the archivebox), then the notice up top that "this isn't archived" needs to be updated to reflect practice
2. There doesn't seem to be any automatic archival process, which isn't a problem, but discussions haven't been archived since October 2014, so manual clerking is clearly needed. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 21:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Done (removed the section) and done in /archive8. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

About the other two archives, I think since they exist they should still linked to from somewhere... Maybe add them to the archivebox? ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 13:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see/comment here. Surely 'probable' socks of a banned user should be banned as well? -- Elvey^{( t• c)} 16:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Good moooorning, clerks! I don't know what standard procedure is for pages like the comments/Q&A pages for the CU-OS 2015 appointments, but the process seems "over" (appointments done on March 31st?) so it seems logical to me that the pages should no longer receive comments. Someone just added a new comment today, which brought it to my attention. I dunno if it should be wrapped in some sort of "closed discussion" template, flagged with an editnotice, or protected outright, so I'll let you clerks determine what the best solution is. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 14:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. I don't see the comment. Can you provide a diff? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I did intend to! Here's the diff, it has already been reverted by Kraxler. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 16:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I've boxed the page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You might want to do the same with the OS subpage then, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2015 CUOS appointments/OS. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 16:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Clerks: there is a passing temporary injunction that is overdue for enactment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Proposed decision. Could a non-recused clerk enact it? It's not clearly documented in the procedures, because temporary injunctions are rather rare, but I believe the proper way to enact it is to place :'''Enacted, ~~~~''' above the support votes, notify OccultZone on their talk page, and post an announcement to ACN and AN. Thanks, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 21:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, if I were the one doing the enactment, I would personally use the following for the notices. Use or not as you see fit; just want to make this happen soon, as it's overdue:

== Temporary injunction regarding open [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_others|''OccultZone and others'']] arbitration case ==
The Arbitration Committee has passed the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_others|''OccultZone and others'']] arbitration case:
{{Ivmbox|1=OccultZone is prohibited from personally approaching any user in relation to any matter raised in this case via Wikipedia email, IRC, on their user talk pages, or any other off-wiki method without obtaining the express permission of the Committee on-wiki. This restriction will expire after the case has been closed.}}
For the Arbitration Committee, ~~~~
: Discuss this at: '''[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Temporary injunction regarding open OccultZone and others arbitration case]]'''

Thanks, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 22:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Also, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Proposed decision, could a clerk change "anyone other then" to "anyone other than" in the box at the top to make it grammatically more correct? I've already updated the other three open cases and the template for new PD pages in the future, but I'm recused here, so could a clerk please do that? Thanks, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 04:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• @ Robert McClenon: You're the case clerk for this one, could you do this? Thanks, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 04:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a good idea for ArbCom clerks to refrain from AE blocks in the future? Similar to the way Arbs generally don't get involved? *I* know what discussions on the clerks mailing list usually look like, but 99% of other editors don't. An AE block by a clerk is taping a giant "kick me" sign on the back of all the other clerks and arbs. In almost all other areas, clerks are supposed to be like Caeser's wife, I think I'd add this to the list of "for appearance sake, if nothing else" limitations. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 14:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it would make a difference, if it wasn't that they are a clerk, it'd be that they are a functionary (which has already been used, though not in this case, yet anyway). Is making AE blocks really that different from commenting in ArbCom policy/procedural reviews (such as the discretionary sanctions review, which quite a few of us did)? I'd probably argue that it's not as 'bad' (and no one had a problem with clerk comments then, in fact a number of editors welcomed them) given that AE blocks can be appealed and reviewed in public whereas the extent of comments on the Arb's thinking can't be.

For the record I hadn't had any offwiki contact about it before either block. After the blocks one person who isn't an arb, a clerk or a functionary sent me an email to check in with me (how I was feeling after some of the comments which had been made), I don't think that they've commented on the blocks (though I haven't searched through their contribs, just haven't seen the username). Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

There must be something about User:Floquenbeam's comment that I'm not getting. What do those internal clerk discussions look like, that would make action by a clerk not advisable? Where does the 'kick me' sign come from? EdJohnston ( talk) 04:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@ EdJohnston: I think Floq (correct me if I'm wrong) means that the discussions on the clerks-l are pretty much purely procedural (e.g. "can we archive x request"..."wait 24 hours then archive it") whereas the perception from some is that the clerks-l is where the arb's tell the clerks (their lackeys) to do the stuff they (arbs) don't want to (or couldn't be bothered doing) themselves. Hence the "kick me" sign is the opportunity for people creating the conspiracy that I blocked Eric cos the arbs told me to and didn't want to do it themselves. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm that nothing interesting ever happens on the clerks list. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Callanecc's interpretation is correct. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 20:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Thanks for your time Robert and welcome to the team, Jim! Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 08:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the latest section ("Closing?") has become a threaded discussion. Can a clerk move EvergreenFir's statement to her section and "Beyond My Ken's" statement to their section and close the section? Otherwise it's going to degrade based on recent actions against Ubikwit. -- DHeyward ( talk) 02:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@ L235:@ Callanecc: Location is here. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Proposed decision#Closing?. I'd IAR and do it myelf but I suspect they would revert it. Both non-arb editors have previous sections ("Beyond My Ken"'s section should probably be renamed to reflect his area. -- DHeyward ( talk) 04:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Dang, I meant to do this sooner. On it. L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 04:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a veteran of ArbCases, but aren't threaded discussions fine on the PD talk page? That's certainly how it was in the last one I was involved in (OZ and others). ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 04:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Salvidrim!: It depends on the case, how the clerks opened it, and how the drafters and the Committee as a whole want it, specific to the circumstances of each individual case. In AmPol2, the PD talk has sectioned discussion enforced. Thanks. L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 04:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha, just noticed the template up top. Apparently others had missed it too. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 04:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe we should come up with an editnotice or something like that for the sectioned talk pages... L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 04:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Just slapping that header template into an editnotice would already be helpful, probably? ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 04:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It's been done for the Wifione case (see [13]). You could set a pagenotice at AP2's PD-talk individually or make a groupnotice for all the case's talk pages. I think you need the admin bit to setup editnotices, so you could ask another clerk or Arb to set it up for (Callanecc did the Wifione one), or I could do it if you tell me what you prefer. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 05:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

We'd need to do it on a case by case basis (ie for individual PD talk pages) rather than for all of them as it's not going to happen all the time. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yea, but with the code you used in the groupnotice, whhat's there only shows up for talkpages of the Wifione case (4 pages), so I assume a similar coding could be added to the groupnotice to only show up on the talkpages (all or some) of AP2. Of course, if it is really only needed for AP2's PD talk, then put it as a pagenotice only. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 13:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah very similar code in a groupnotice for PD talk pages but as the one editor per section rule isn't applied to all cases you need a list of exceptions there and the code would just get complicated and annoying. I'd just be easier to create a pagenotice for each PD talk page where the rule is going to be used. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha! Wanna do it? :p ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 01:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done and added to the clerks' procedures. You should consider joining the clerk team Salv, I reckon you'd be pretty good at it. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 02:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

... Probably, I guess? ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 03:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Flick me an email if you're interested. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't get enough of me at SPI, can you? :p I'll think about it. I'm hardly known for my dependability! ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 03:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for cleanup! (for the record, I have no preference but understand why it was done as well as pro/con for each style. I didn't feel comfortable responding "threaded" to a comment when it was clear that was not the desire of clerks or the committee. I originally missed the tag when the page opened a month ago and was corrected too, so that is how I knew it was being enforced and desired.) -- DHeyward ( talk) 05:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@ L235:@ Callanecc: Unless i'm mistaken, I believe it's 24 hours since the 4th net support vote was cast and the case can mercifully be closed. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Proposed decision#Vote. -- DHeyward ( talk) 20:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It's standard practice to wait for word from the arbitrators that it's time to close a case. Checks and balances and all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems that would be the point of the 4th net support vote and the 24 hour waiting period. It shouldn't be a surprise and they all had the opportunity to oppose (indeed, one did). Same with simple majority. The only thing that may be confusing is 1st, 2nd choice voting but that's been hashed out for weeks and remedies haven't changed. Waiting on courtesy makes more sense but the checks and balances are laid out in the methodology adopted by the net+4 and 24 hours, or absolute majority. Prolonging it even more seems pointless and bureaucratic. -- DHeyward ( talk) 00:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone let arbitrators know it passed net+4 votes and past 24 hours? Seraphimblade voted to close it out on Sunday and clarified that they opposed the now 4-5 sanction even though it wasn't necessary. two other sanctions also don't have majorities but it's pretty clear they don't need to finish voting. It seems they all know what's passing and what the final ruling will be. -- DHeyward ( talk) 01:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@ DHeyward: Yes, the arbitrators are aware. None has given the final sign-off for closing yet. Thanks. L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 01:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@ L235:@ Callanecc: Please update that sanction 3.4 cannot pass. Yet now we have only net 3 arbs to close. I presume they are pondering the undated 2.2 Ubikwit topic ban. -- DHeyward ( talk) 20:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The case filing template is confusing. In particular, at the very top, it says to provide a neutral title after CASENAME= , but then immediately below, it says not to enter anything in the case header above. So do I put the case name after CASENAME= , or do I ignore that and specify the casename by the section heading? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The template says not to add anything in the section header; that is, do not enter anything in the "Subject/headline" box above the main box. Enter a neutral name after CASENAME=. Thanks. L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I figured that out by previewing. I think that the template could use clarification. Thank you. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I suppose the first comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/preload could be reworded from "DO NOT ENTER ANYTHING IN THE SECTION HEADER BOX ABOVE THIS" to something like "DO NOT ENTER ANYTHING IN THE "Subject/headline" TEXT BOX ABOVE THE MAIN EDITING AREA" to remove any shred of possible ambiguity. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 21:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it up to the top so it makes more sense... Kharkiv07 ( T) 21:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

...and after realizing I screwed up the code; I did it again with Salvidrim!'s wording. Kharkiv07 ( T) 21:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Kharkiv07, FYI, clerks generally prefer that pages in Arbspace not be edited by non-clerks, which is why I suggested an edit instead of made it... although in this case I don't think there is much to object to so it will likely be fine, I just thought I'd mention it for the future. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 21:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Meh. This seems like (one of the few) appropriate applications of WP:IAR. Kharkiv07 ( T) 21:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine; I've reinstated the edit as an uncontroversial clerk action without discussion on the clerks' list. @ Liz and Penwhale: do you think this needs to be brought up on the clerks' list? L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 21:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you could mention it. I only saw that it was changed because you pinged me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as clarification goes, what else about the template needs to be fixed/changed? (I'll work on it in my sandbox this time ;P) Kharkiv07 ( T) 21:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't explain clearly explain how to add parties. Also, being told to use Userlinks and Adminlinks would, to my mind, be clearer than the admin = yes or no business, but that is just my opinion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do not edit any arbitration-related pages, Kharkiv07, except for case requests or on open cases if you are a participant. It makes the arbitrators and clerks very cross. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this an arbitration-related page? If so, the instructions shouldn't say that questions can be posed here. If not, and if you were only addressing Kharkiv07, is there a way for a non-clerk to make draft edits to arbitration stuff in a user subpage for the arbs and clerks to review? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If the clerks want something changed I'll do it in my sandbox and then they can play with it. Kharkiv07 ( T) 22:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Robert, I didn't mean noticeboards, I was referring to policy pages, templates and the like. I'm grateful that you brought the problem of a confusing case filing template to ArbCom's attention, I hope we can straighten this out.

Kharkiv07, if you want to edit these pages, you should just apply to be a clerk some day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Clerks: In response to the thread above this I believe that the case requests can be much more efficient in several ways, and to make this happen I think there's an easier way to set it up then is currently being done. The root of the problem is the current requests page, not only is it up there for all the world to see when somebody posts it without giving them a chance to review it, but when arbitrators accept a case you then move it anyway.

Currently, if I submitted a case entitled "Foo" it would become a section on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. Then after the committee accepts it, it would be moved to "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Foo" by one of you. I think a solution that would make life easier for everybody would be for them to file their complaint at "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Foo" in the first place, and then, when they're ready, they can transclude that page onto Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. This has three main advantages;

1. Users can review the case before they transclude it
2. It wouldn't have to be moved when opened
3. It would make it much easier to create a much more manageable case request system, as you have far more options when creating a new page in its entirety than when you just create a section. If this were to be done, it wouldn't be hard for me (or anybody else) to make a much more user-friendly way to submit cases.

Please, tell me what you think. Kharkiv07 ( T) 02:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Not immediately saying no, but this raises some problems not previously experienced, because actions regarding pages are more difficult than regarding sections:

When a case request is declined - which they often are - current practice is that it is blanked and a record kept at the index of declined requests, as well as linked to via permalink in notifications to all parties. Unless we keep all the declined case requests undeleted - which brings up its own (bigger) problems, this breaks continuity and the historical record. I don't know; you could come up with five more potential issues. Again, I'm not objecting, just there are a lot of considerations to be taken into account. L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 02:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with keeping the requests on pages, it's still available just like a diff would be, just in page form. True it would break tradition, but sometimes you have to break tradition for a more effective system. That being said, I appreciate the feedback and of course it's whatever is easier for the clerks. Kharkiv07 ( T) 02:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'll echo L235's concerns; in addition, what the filer choose as the case title may not be where the case end up at, so having the request already on a subpage can show preferential treatments. Not to mention, the clerks still have to go through every page for updates when the case opens anyway. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The page can be moved to the agreed neutral title. Something not possible with the (bloated) history of the requests page. Also currently the successful request pages have no history. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 14:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC).

If I read the Arbitration Commitee procedures correctly, then this case request is ready to be opened. It

1. was filed almost three days ago
2. has reached four net votes two days ago
3. has reached majority more than one day ago

.-- Müdigkeit ( talk) 19:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Müdigkeit. We are still working out some of the details between the arbitrators and the clerks regarding responsibilities on this case. It will get opened presently. The clerks wait to get the go ahead from the arbitration committee before opening a formal case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem, wasn't sure if you missed it or not.-- Müdigkeit ( talk) 19:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures "When to action"? How about "When to act"? (et. al.) As noted at wikt:action#Verb, "The verb sense to action is rejected by some usage authorities." NE Ent 12:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I've really no idea where to ask this, but User:Soham321 is trying to appeal a decision of mine at WP:AE. It looks like he accidentally put his request into the page template. Could somebody help him format it and put it in the right place, please? See this discussion on my page. Bishonen | talk 17:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC).

 Already done Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Discretionary_sanctions can be archived. NE Ent 23:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)