Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
|Armenia-Azerbaijan 3||18 March 2023|
|Amendment request: American politics 2||none||(orig. case)||20 March 2023|
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.
The clerks may be contacted privately, in the event a matter could not be prudently addressed publicly (ie., 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.
A procedural reference for clerks (and arbitrators) is located here.
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.
I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to ask (I used the link "Contact the arbitration clerks with questions" from here). I read there:
Previously-enacted single-admin editor restrictions do not, as a result of #Duration of restrictions, become subject to modification and revocation in the same way as ordinary administrator actions after one year. Does this mean that the indefinite topic bans imposed earlier remain indefinite, and it is still useless to appeal them? Of course, I keep my case in mind.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Does this mean that the indefinite topic bans imposed earlier remain indefinite- Any topic ban imposed under DS and CT can be indefinite, and it's length is not affected by this change. This statement here is saying that the second bullet point of Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction does not apply to restrictions imposed under the former DS procedure.In your case: Your topic ban remains indefinite and the appeal method is the one at Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments even after a year passes.
it is still useless to appeal them?- Not necessarily. The standard for an appeal has changed to be easier to meet. For an appeal to be accepted, it no longer requires
clear and substantial consensusand instead only
clear consensus.In your case: It will be easier to appeal, but you need to make sure you have addressed the concerns in the last appeal(s).
- Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 10:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Seems as though when I go to add information or dispute anything my edits are reversed. For example recently I added referenced information that is reliable it was reversed without discussing first. Before that I removed a stat figure that was from a conflicting party on the subject and again it was removed. We should be using reliable third party references on topics like this with the historical disputes. I dont want to cause trouble so I am reaching out here on best ways to go about this. Is any third party members available to help with edits? Thank you for your time. Nocturnal781 (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- While the Arbitration committee currently has an open case about the subject area (WP:AA3), I'm afraid that's not really a question the committee or clerks can answer. General advice about dispute resolution and places to go to in such cases can be found at WP:Dispute resolution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)