Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/archive9

Maintain T:AC
Hi, could the clerks update Template:ArbComOpenTasks/ClarificationAmendment? I can't because I'm recused. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 23:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

case withdrawn
The OP has requested withdrawal of Arbitration/Requests/Case. NE Ent 20:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the FYI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Requesting help with Arbitration amendment request
Hello, I am trying to fill an arbitration amendment request, seeking revocation of a sanction imposed on me.

I am not certain what to fill in for most of those Sections (except the statement that I need to put in.)

I assume the other party to mention would be the admin who imposed a sanction. How do I inform him, and how do I place the diff in the requested place. Also, what is to be stated in the case=, the clauses, etc. I would appreciate your help. Js82 (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, for case put in the name of the case the discretionary sanctions where authorised in (see Template:Ds/topics/table).
 * Delete the decision and title parameters.
 * For clause1 put what the sanction is (eg topic ban from weather) and a diff of where you were told about it. You put what you want to happen to the sanction after clause1-request (eg "revocation of the sanction"). Then in your statement you give the reasons ArbCom should override the admin who imposed the sanction.
 * Delete the clause2 & clause2-reason bit.
 * party2 is the username of the admin who imposed the sanction.
 * You use SECTIONTITLE on their talk page to inform the admin who imposed the sanction that you're appealing it to ArbCom (the section title will be the name of the case, what you entered after case). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot, . My bad, but I did not understand what to put in "Case" yet. Could you kindly tell me what exactly to put ? This sanction is imposed under India, Pakistan. Js82 (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You'd put "India-Pakistan" then as that's the name of the case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Redacting statements in a case request
Would a clerk please review this edit which shows an editor removing some comments at the case page. If comments need to be removed, should that be done by a clerk or can anyone remove what they think is a personal attack? The removal seems excessive to me, and likely to inflame an already difficult situation. My recommendation would be for a clerk to restore the comments. Johnuniq (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, we are discussing. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 12:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

L235 rights
Could someone assign L235 the WP:autopatrolled right? The case pages are showing as needed to be patrolled. NE Ent 01:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I recently autopatrolled the non-admin clerks but must've forget L235. Now ✅. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hatting old DS notifications
Background
 * When the Committee replaced the old DS procedure with the new (current) one they introduced an automated system (using the edit filter) for notifying/alerting/warning editors of the existence of discretionary sanctions. As of May 2015 all notifications/alerts/warnings issued under the old system expired.


 * Those notifications/alerts/warnings are still listed in plain site on case pages.

Action needed
 * The clerks need to go through all case pages where discretionary sanctions are authorised and hat (see below) previously issues notifications/alerts/warnings which were issued only under standard discretionary sanctions remedies.


 * Before hatting entire notifications sections the clerks need to ensure that each notification/alert/warning was issued under only a discretionary sanctions remedy, and not concurrently with another remedy in the case (as a article probation or 1RR where prior warning is required).


 * In some cases the notification/alert/warning section is the same as the log of bans/blocks and other enforcement actions, requiring that the clerks separate the log of notifications/alerts/warnings from the log of enforcement sanctions into different sections before hatting.


 * When hatting, the clerks should use the following format:

= Discussion =

Amendment of ~ template Comment Suggestion
I propose that we amend thsi slightly to include the following line between the last current line and the signature line.


 * Requests for exemptions to the word count can be made either on the page in question or to the arbcom mailing list.

Purely for the time it takes to type it manually and to ensure that when we are advising were all giving the same advice.

Thoughts on the matter? Amortias (T)(C) 12:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've no objections to this beyond what I raised on the list. You may also want to copy the proposed change to the list, instead of just listing it here. Thanks! L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 12:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, of course, it could always be polished a bit more; how about:

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee ( if email is disabled).
 * Look good? L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 12:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Will send to list later today (anyone else has my blessing to do so in the meantime). Amortias (T)(C) 13:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No comments or reservations received since the above template so have amended it to include the section listed by L235. Amortias (T)(C) 16:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for link assistance
I've linked to a entire log Special:Log/Kirill_Lokshin in my evidence section, contrary to the instructions on top of the page (don't link to an entire log) because I don't know how to date restrict the link. I'd appreciate assistance in doing that, if possible; I'd like to simply show 22 Oct 2014 to 22 Oct 2015. NE Ent 11:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to incorporate an ending date but this edit begins in October 2015 and you can scan back to 2014. Perhaps another clerk will know how to display a specific range.  Liz  Read! Talk! 12:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I tried using the "limit" parameter and that seems to work. NE Ent 12:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

AE2
In AE2, TheRedPenofDoom has left rather inflammatory comments. He is currently under GG topic ban regarding and gender related dispute, broadly construed. There's enough heat already than to add another topic-ban violating comment in a case about a topic-banned block. It's probably cleaner for a clerk to just remove it. --DHeyward (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)