Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks: Difference between revisions

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) Old noticeboard #1 (February 2006→December 2008, clerks’ coordination board) Old noticeboard #2 (December 2008→March 2010, clerks’ coordination board) 5 (January 2006→May 2009) 6 (May 2009→June 2012, noticeboard merged) 7 (June 2012→September 2014) 8 (September 2014→September 2015) 9 (3 October→4 November 2015) 10 (October 2015→March 2021) 11 (April 2021→March 2025) 12 (March 2025→present)

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 2.

I should preface this by saying this is overwhelmingly a good idea that has been well executed. My comments below are basically nitpicking and suggestions and should not be seen as criticism, despite how extensive it is. I’ve signed this multiple times to hopefully facilitate responding inline as that will (I hope) be the least confusing. I wrote most of this as I went while looking through the whole directory in the order presented below, with added notes about things I noticed later, but most people are only going to be reading individual sections so won’t have the context of the whole thing so I feel early feedback when I didn’t have that context is still useful so I’ve left it in rather than removing it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to note this is fantastic feedback @Thryduulf and I appreciate your taking the time to share it! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Kevin, thank you so much for all this awesome feedback! My schedule this week looks unpredictable so I can’t promise I can do this super quickly. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To keep track of what I have done, I am adding {{resolved}} to sections where I have (to my own satisfaction) addressed all feedback. Please feel free to remove the template if you disagree 🙂 HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Resolved

• The main conduct disputes page should have an option “I want to complain about the behaviour of an arbitrator”. That should lead to a page that establishes whether the behaviour is relevant to arbitration or not (if the latter, directing them to the relevant page(s) for conduct by editors who are not arbs. For behaviour that is related to their official capacity it should (and I don’t immediately know how to do this) separate into things that require talking to the arb first (suggesting that be done first and contacting the Committee if it’s been done but wasn’t successful) and allegations so serious the Committee needs to be informed as a first instance. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I ended up creating one page for both arb-related and arb-unrelated issues, because ultimately the process is similar. There are absolutely problems which are unrelated to arb duties but need the attention of the full Committee (e.g. credible evidence of off-wiki harassment perpetrated by the arb). I said editors should first talk to the arb, then apply regular dispute resolution if the matter is not arb-related, and then escalate to an individual arb if there are extremely serious allegations which might warrant e.g. suspension or expulsion from the Committee and should not be discussed on the -b list. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “I believe an administrator needs to be desysopped, and I have already tried talking to them” should lead to a page that explicitly notes venues like ANI and AARV – possibly something like or linking to Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions – before arriving at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Directory/Conduct/Case (or possibly modifying the latter page to inlcude such links). Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Done at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Directory/Conduct/Administrator. WP:TOOLMISUSE fits this like a glove, so the AC/D page primarily points people there. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Resolved

• This should have information relevant to things that are not content disputes (note that not everyone reading this is familiar with Wikipedia jargon) – linking to the page for copyright problems and the general Wikipedia:Contact us. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I just removed the word “dispute” from the button and added a link to contact us; the main point of that menu is ensuring there is a wide berth between ArbCom and content, so I don’t want to get too into the weeds. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Directory/Sanction appeal/Question should include something about messages in the block log, as it’s likely that some editors caught up in range blocks will end up here (even though they should be at the IP blocked page, not everyone is going to know this) and they will not have received any notice from a specific admin. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ll admit to not being a regular in that area of adminship, and I have not (yet…) had to appeal a block. @Thryduulf: Would you be able to suggest some wording? Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ll have a think, but I may not get time until Monday. Thryduulf (talk) 07:01, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thryduulf: friendly nudge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Enforcement action appeals – only semi-relevant here, but we could do with friendly pages to link to that explain how to appeal. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications was particularly jarring to land at. On second look Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Appeals and ammendments actually isn’t too bad, maybe it was the similarly of formatting to the procedures page compared with the difference to the layout on the directory pages that wasn’t the greatest? Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We definitely could; the section at WP:GAB quotes the procedures. Rewriting that to be more user-friendly can be done as a regular editor, so I’ll put that on my list as a non-ArbCom task. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The Checkuser block appeal page should include information about what to do if you want to appeal such a block but cannot edit your talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Done. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The sentence Note that the Committee must agree that your private evidence is both truly private and merits review of the sanction. (and to an extent the following sentence) on the Private evidence appeal page isn’t the greatest imo as it’s conflating two things: whether the appeal needs to be private and whether it merits a review. What it should say depends on whether the Committee evaluates both questions at the same time or not. If an appeal is received but the Committee deems it doesn’t need to be private, will they evaluate whether the appeal merits review or not? If yes, they’ll direct the appellant to on-wiki or other appropriate processes, if no, they’ll just decline the appeal. If it does need to be private but doesn’t merit review, the appeal will be declined also but will this be advised differently to an appeal that doesn’t need to be private and also doesn’t merit review? Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ll ping Daniel who agreed to be bugged about this on clerks-l and who answers much of arbcom-en’s incoming stuff to answer this question before making changes to fit said answer 🙂 HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If an appeal is received but the Committee deems it doesn’t need to be private, will they evaluate whether the appeal merits review or not? – no, if the matter should be public, we don’t review merits after we establish that point. We just direct them back on-wiki, and then evaluate it on-wiki once it is presented on-wiki (in line with the rules around presentation of case/evidence etc. – which often the emails don’t comply with). Everything should be public where possible. Daniel (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (Also, from a practical perspective – sending someone back on-wiki can be a unilateral boilerplate reply or, in more complex cases, Net-4. Reviewing on the merits is a Net-4 or, in more complex cases, majority vote. It’s a matter of practicalities, in addition to a desire to hold everything on-wiki where possible, that leads to this general practice. Daniel (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2025 (UTC))[reply]

   Clarified that you check whether it is private first, and then address the merits if so. I didn’t get into the weeds of exactly how the appeal will be heard (net-4, majority, unilaterally decline if it is WP:EBUR material). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

The main page for this section should have more options:

• “I want to ask the clerks for help privately” that links to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Directory/Contact/clerks-l

   Done HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “I want to ask other editors for help publicly” that links to Wikipedia:Help desk (and maybe to a general help channel on IRC (and discord?) if one exists?)

  Y Sent editors to WP:TEA; if they are so lost so as to be at ArbCom looking for general help, they are almost certainly a newbie. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “I want to contact your bosses / someone in charge” (not necessarily this exact wording). That should link to a page that breifly explains the relationship between arbcom, the community and WMF and links to WIkipedia:Contact us and the WMF’s general introduction material (and contact page?). Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Y WP:Contact us contains a good explanation of who to ask about what, so most of that menu just points people there. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is all good, except Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Directory/Other now says “I want to a question to someone in charge” that should obviously be either “I want to ask a question to someone in charge” or “I want to contact someone in charge”. I’ll look in detail at the changes to other sections later. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Fixed, thank you! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:Toadspike#Categorization of AE protection actions needed (9 November 2025). Why did ClerkBot think this was an AE action? I deliberately removed “AE” from Twinkle’s automatic edit summary. I’m pretty sure I did everything correctly. Toadspike [Talk] 06:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Received and I will look into it! Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve adjusted the heuristics to avoid this now! The Twinkle default for AE actions is, interestingly, [[WP:30/500|Arbitration enforcement]]. So for some time, “30/500” was enough to be presumptively an AE action. But I’ve removed that now and refined the heuristics a bit more broadly. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike: One note here is that whikle RUSUKR is a community GS, not an arbcom CT, it does overlap with WP:CT/EE, so actions taken under RUSUKR can also be counted as valid EE actions. – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s true, but there’s a higher bar for a CTOP protection outside of ECR. I wouldn’t have protected this page if it only fell under the CTOP and not the GS with ECR. Toadspike [Talk] 07:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had unclosed a request at AFC/R Link to section as a purely procedural oppose to the close based on my IAR interpretation of exemption A1, and the original closer brought it to my talk page and suggested I ask the clerks for clarification. While I would love to just solve the request as an Extended Confirmed User, it’s outside of my realm of knowledge, but the procedural question gnaws at me. Should A1 be reframed to say: in the talk namespace or at the appropriate request venue (bold is my words)? Happy Editing — IAmChaos 21:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the link above was to the section on my talk page: User talk:IAmChaos#WP:AFC/R and WP:ARBECR. Courtesy ping: S0091Happy Editing — IAmChaos 21:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IAmChaos: Hi, I’m answering as a former ArbCom member who was involved in the drafting of WP:ECR, and not as an ArbCom clerk. If you want an official answer you’ll need to go to WP:ARCA. To answer the question:

1. The term the “Talk:” namespace was specifically chosen to refer to that specific namespace and not all requests for edits in general. The exception was intended to be narrow and to allow for a minimal amount of participation in ways that do not require a great deal of editor time to respond to and manage (given, among other things, the sockpuppetry that often exists in significant amounts in ECR’d topic areas). So for the temporary account to make the AFC/R request was not permitted, and it could have been appropriately reverted without consideration of its merits.
2. However, you do retain the discretion to grant the request anyway if you think the proposal was good, knowing that you are taking complete responsibility for the content (see WP:PROXYING).
3. The temporary account should be warned (which S0091 did), and if the TA repeats the same or similar edits, it can be blocked.

Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying – I guess it’s good that so much thought went into the drafting, I think I’m just not used to having to interpret rules quite so strictly. Happy Editing — IAmChaos 16:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IAmChaos I think #2 is important to keep in mind especially for AFC/R. If it is a valid redirect and an otherwise AGF request, reviewers can accept it. I appreciate you taking the time to ask and KevinL for providing a thorough response. S0091 (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]