Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks
Noticeboard
[edit]Clerks' Noticeboard
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wikipediocracy-related conduct | 21 October 2024 | 0/0/0 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) | Motion | (orig. case) | 17 August 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently 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-l
lists.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.
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Arbitrators, 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.
Question regarding talk pages of articles to which extended confirmation requirements apply
[edit]Hi, I've got two questions: 1) If an articles that has been marked as "contentious" and put under the rule that only extended confirmed accounts are allowed to edit it, does that only apply to the article page or the talk page as well? 2) If I submit a request for an edit of a "contentious" article, which is under the rule that only extended confirmed accounts are allowed to edit it, then that request shows up on the talk page of the article. Am I allowed to reply to other users (only within the scope of that edit request section) on that same talk page that reply to my edit request? Many thanks for your help.--MiBerG (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hello MiBerG! You are permitted to use the talk page, but only to make edit requests. You are not permitted to join existing discussions or start new ones. As for your second question, the wording of the restriction is that you may only make edit requests. If you need to clarify what you meant, that is fine. But more substantive discussion is not keeping in the spirit of the restriction. Best and happy editing, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @HouseBlaster, thank you for the clarification.--MiBerG (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Broken implementation notes
[edit]I happened to be reading back some of the recent cases, and I noticed that the implementation notes for this page all consider themselves passing, even though that wasn't the case. This hasn't broken for this more recent case so I'm not sure what went wrong here and definitely don't want to go touching it myself. 195.195.244.151 (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- The implementation notes hadn't been completely substituted on that first case, so once the casenav data for the number of active arbitrators was no longer available, it treated it as having 0 active arbitrators, and 1 support become enough to show as passing. I have fixed it on that page by adding
|active= 11to each proposal (and also subst'ed it for good measure). Thanks, SilverLocust 💬 16:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)