This noticeboard's primary purpose is to to attract the attention of the clerks to a particular matter by non-clerks. Non-clerksare 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 toclerks-llists.wikimedia.org; only the clerk team and individual arbitrators have access to emails sent to that list.
This page has archives. Sections older than4 days may be auto-archived byClueBot III if there are more than 2.
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 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]
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]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 andWikipedia:Contact us.Thryduulf (talk)12:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 creatingone 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]
This should have information relevant to things that are not contentdisputes (note that not everyone reading this is familiar with Wikipedia jargon) - linking to the page for copyright problems and the generalWikipedia: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]
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]
We definitely could; the section atWP: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]
The sentenceNote 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 pingDaniel 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 isWP:EBUR material).HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)04:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I want to ask other editors for help publicly" that links toWikipedia:Help desk (and maybe to a general help channel on IRC (and discord?) if one exists?)
"I want to contact your bosses / someone in charge" (not necessarily this exact wording). That should link to a page thatbreifly explains the relationship between arbcom, the community and WMF and links toWIkipedia:Contact us and the WMF's general introduction material (and contact page?).Thryduulf (talk)12:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Two weeks ago I made a very very very very simple exit request, I used the template, I listed what change I wanted to make, I described the very very simple reason for why I wanted to make the edit request. A day or two ago it was rejected without any real explanation other than that they didn't understand the very simple request, and saying that the template wasn't followed, which it was.
For all the things wrong with this, one aspect is that it creates a dilemma for me. I don't have 500 edits, so, from what I can tell from the warnings and so on, I literally have no way of participating in contentious discussions whatsoever...
Which... me representing, as I understand it the majority of editors, that being that the majority of editors are not extended confirmed, makes it frustrating to be unable to participate in these areas whatsoever other than edit requests.
But, that aside, this brings up two wrinkles. Am I forced to re-submit the edit request, changing it... in some nebulous way to address a vague non-complaint that puts me in the position of having to somehow read the mind of the editor to try to understand what part of a very very very very simple edit request that they didn't understand, or can I participate in the discussion of the edit request?
The second wrinkle is that I commented on the persons talk page asking them to explain what part of the very very very very simple edit request they didn't understand, and I'm getting yelled at. Are other peoples talk pages considered to fall under the ct/ecr limitations? Are user talk pages considered to be areas that fall under the ct/ecr limitations?
Not a clerk, but I can answer the second question: CTs, and the remedies thereof, apply to the topic onall pages on Wikipedia. If a topic is under extended confirmed restrictions (note that not all CTs are), then you must be extended confirmed to comment on the topic onany page on Wikipedia, save for noncontrovrersial edit requests. I can't comment on the first part of the question, since (a) not a clerk and (b) you didn't provide a diff to the edit in question, which would be helpful to the clerks. -The BushrangerOne ping only01:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you might be talking aboutthis request. Not a clerk, but the best way to maximize the likelihood that an edit request is accepted in that topic area is to followWP:EDITXY. If an edit request includes things like personal opinion, unsourced claims, an unsolicited review of bias in an article, and pretty much anything controversial/requiring a consensus building discussion, it is very unlikely to be accepted. As the responding editor said "it is unclear whether or not this event is a massacre (largely because the term massacre is not well defined)". Asking for something in the topic area to be labeled as a 'massacre' and included in a list of massacres is about as far away forWP:EDITXY as you can get, regardless of the merits of the request. That's my view anyway, FWIW. If, for example, you had reported a misspelling of the word massacre in the article, it would have been processed.Sean.hoyland (talk)03:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
lists.wikimedia.org; only the clerk team and individual arbitrators have access to emails sent to that list.
Resolved
Fixed, thank you!HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)16:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]