Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks

Clerks' Noticeboard (WP:AC/CN)

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Michael Jackson	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	01 Jun 2026	15 Jun 2026

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5	none	(orig. case)	2 June 2026

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Contentious topic changes	27 May 2026

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 available at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures.

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.

Feedback about Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Directory

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)

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)

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)

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)

Main directory page

Resolved

• The word "appeal" should be included somewhere in relation to previous arbitration decisions, as someone looking to appeal a sanction is going to be looking for that word and isn't necessarily going to know that this is one of the things we include under "change" (especially as "appeal" is used in relations to blocks and bans). Maybe adding something like "I want to appeal a sanction placed by the Arbitration Committee" or changing the existing link to "I want to appeal or ask for a change...", but I'm not wedded to either specifically. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Directory/Amendment should similarly explicitly note that this includes appeals. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  Edit: actually the blocks and bans appeal page is pretty good, perhaps instead the link to that section should be broadened to include sanctions other than blocks and bans? Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  I added the word "sanction" to the appeal menu (and its sub-menus). It was meant for any restriction whatsoever. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• There should be an additional main option: "I want to contact someone about a legal matter" that leads to a page briefly explaining how legal matters work and links to the copyright problems page, the WMF legal page and Wikipedia:Contact us. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  Good thought;  Done. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Conduct disputes

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)

  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)

• "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)

   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)

Contact

Resolved

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Directory/Contact and/or Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Directory/Contact/arbcom-en should have a note that if you are note certain wehther something needs to be private or not that you should contact the committee privately and they will advise. Maybe noting there is not penalty for being over-cautious but there can be for being recklessly or intentionally under-cautious. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  Edit: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Directory/Other does this well. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Article content

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)

  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)

Appealing a sanction

• 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)

  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)

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

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

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

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

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  (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))

   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)

Other

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)

• "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)

• "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)

  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)

  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)

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

Please consider moving some of the Wikipedia:Contentious topics footnotes refed from WP:STANDARDSET into its body

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee § Please consider moving some of the Wikipedia:Contentious topics footnotes refed from WP:STANDARDSET into its body

So I jumped into Wikipedia:Contentious topics from Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/Iranian_politics to double check what the "enforced BRD" provision currently entails (and whether it would make sense for me to apply to a page), and that experience seems broken; most likely the links are broken elsewhere too. More than that, it seems sorta silly to link into a footnote for something that has major upshots to editors (and especially newbies). It's also hard for bots and editors to correctly update when things change. I'd suggest removing them from the footnotes and sticking them into their own sections; bonus for adding some WP shortcuts too. This would also allow further examples, commentary, and whatnot without being a footnoted legalese nightmare. :P I'd sofixit myself, but, y'know, scary arb-page "only with arbcom's blessing" warning and whatnot. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 07:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this (cc @ArbCom Clerks: ). We recently did this for the awareness footnote with Special:Diff/1329633540. Perhaps we could consider doing so for more of these, or perhaps it'd be worthwhile to split enforced BRD and consensus required into individual pages? KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Shortcuts for Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Pseudoscience and fringe science

Currently, Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Pseudoscience and fringe science indicates that the page's designated shortcut is WP:CT/CFWP:CT/CF. It is unclear to me and at least one other editor what "CF" means. Also, I see that WP:CT/PSWP:CT/PS is another shortcut for the same page, and according to Template:Contentious topics/list, this contentious topic's default topic code is ps, as rendered in Template:Contentious topics/table.

Would a clerk please update the Wikipedia:Contentious topics/topic specific header template on Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Pseudoscience and fringe science to designate ps as the topic code (topic parameter) and WP:CT/CF as the secondary shortcut (shortcut2 parameter)? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 07:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done. In case you're curious, cf stands for cold fusion, but I agree that is unintuitive. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 13:28, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate it! — Newslinger talk 17:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)