Noticeboard

Clerks' Noticeboard (WP:AC/CN)

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[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
Amendment request: Lightbreather	none	(orig. case)	27 February 2025

Arbitrator motions

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-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.

Archives

1 (to 26 January 2006)
2 (to 28 January 2006)
3 (archive of a discussion started on January 29, 2006 at the incidents noticeboard)
4 (to 28 January 2006)
Old noticeboard #1 (February 2006→December 2008, clerks' coordination board)
Old noticeboard #2 (December 2008→March 2010, clerks' coordination board)
5 (January 2006→May 2009)
6 (May 2009→June 2012, noticeboard merged)
7 (June 2012→September 2014)
8 (September 2014→September 2015)
9 (3 October→4 November 2015)
10 (October 2015→March 2021)
11 (April 2021→present)

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by 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.

Balanced editing restriction implementation

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived until 10:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC).

Now that the balanced editing restriction exists, thought I'd get the ball rolling on my proposed implementation for it. Of course, entirely up to y'all how to do it, but at least the way I envisioned it, the to-dos are:

Create a parameter for {{pp-extended}} like |ctop=, then add that to all ARBPIA pages in the AE log. @SilverLocust and I talked a while about if there's any way to avoid this, because it is the most time-consuming part of implementation, but we couldn't come up with any other approach that would avoid false positives. Still, maybe room for brainstorming here. But I also know @Elli had volunteered to do this all themself as penance for proposing the thing. :P
Add {{Contentious topics/talk notice|a-i}} to all talk pages of said articles, where it isn't already present. This part should be a simple AWB/JWB run.
Create an edit filter for edits to pages with either of those templates on them. This bit's pretty easy.
Create necessary template-y stuff.
[Optional but good idea] Look for pages that may have been protected with ARBPIA in the summary but not logged. Correctly log them, then apply tasks 1&2 above. Quarry 89895 shows a lower bound for all pages protected that way (based on references to the case or Israel in summary), while Quarry 89896 shows an upper bound (based on any word starting with "Arb"). Even the latter is only 3,123 pages, so this actually shouldn't be too hard to sift through.
[Optional but good idea] Maintain a tool to track percentage of hits to that filter. And good news! I already did that for y'all. Working prototype at https://n-ninety-five.toolforge.org/. (Get it? Because it tracks filtering rate?) Would be more than happy to transfer primary maintainership to a clerk or arb on request.
[Optional but good idea] Have a bot maintain task~~s 1&~~2 going forward, each time a new page is ARBPIA-ECP'd.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: See filter 1339 and EF/R and my talk page. I can discuss it more in about an hour. SilverLocust 💬 03:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The way I've done the edit filter allows #1 to be skipped: The article/draft just needs to be EC protected, have a protection template (via Module:Protection banner), and have a PIA notice on the talk page (that doesn't use |section=yes) (via Template:Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice base). Placing missing PIA talk notices certainly needs doing, and I intend to go about that soon. SilverLocust 💬 05:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I like that on a technical level. But in terms of the remedy as written, does that satisfy that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures? A page might be ECP'd as a regular admin action, and then have the CTOP banner added to talk unrelatedly. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, if it isn't really subject to ECR, then |section=yes should be added to clarify that. I also made the tracking category Category:Wikipedia pages subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict to allow one to look for pages that don't seem to belong. SilverLocust 💬 06:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I do think there would still be occasional exceptions—maybe a list or broad-concept article that touches on PIA at several points, but is mostly not about PIA, but gets ECP'd for other reasons. Maybe there should be a special parameter to disable this in edge cases? |disable-BER-tracking=1 or something. Also, there should probably be a filter tracking addition of the ARBPIA talknotice by non-admins, if there isn't already, as that's the other realm where I could see this approach leading to problems. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand |section=yes to mean there's just one section that touch upon PIA, just that it isn't a page whose "topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted". (The older template, Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement, instead has |relatedcontent=yes as the parameter name, which is clearer about this.)

As an alternative to a filter, you can add the tracking category to your watchlist and view category changes, especially using RelatedChanges. SilverLocust 💬 07:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick improvement proposal, would moving "This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." in new_html to the front allow for one less condition to be consumed on average? As it would filter the vast majority of cases first. (Replying here per your request at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby: new_html is a lot bigger of a variable than the other conditions. As noted in m:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules format#Performance, "In general, when dealing with these variables, it's always much better to consume further conditions but avoid computing heavy stuff. In order to achieve this, always put heavy variables as last conditions." See also this comment on my talk page. SilverLocust 💬 18:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh true, that does absolutely make sense, thanks! I was too focused on the number of conditions and didn't realize how big the condition itself would be. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could bot edits be excluded from the edit filter? The category moves by User:JJMC89 bot III tend to clutter Special:AbuseLog, making it harder to spot problematic edits, and I doubt we need to ensure that bots adhere to the balanced editing restriction. Jfire (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure. I had previously left out a bot check because bots aren't extended confirmed anyway, but there are some admin bots who do hit the filter. SilverLocust 💬 07:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question: do we also need to log edits by administrators who edit pages that are under the ARBPIA topic area? Codename Noreste (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator could receive this sanction, yes. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's an assumption here that {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=a-i|section=yes}} is different from {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=a-i}} without the parameter, but actually section=yes is the default and they produce the same text which says that only parts of the article are included. To get text that says all of the article is included you have to use section=no (which does not currently exist on any pages even though almost all of them are clearly full coverage). Changing the default would fix this immediately. Zero^talk 04:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on 2, "This part should be a simple AWB/JWB run", this is unfortunately very much not the case. The "topic area" is largely unmapped and has a wrinkled complex boundary. I'm currently trying to map subregions and apply templates. Some of this can be done in a semi-automated way but in many cases inspecting article content is necessary. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there are 5,412 articles with ARBPIA talk page templates. The great majority have the old template. It's hard to guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are more than 1,000 others that don't yet have templates. Pages which have been the subject of contention are more likely to have templates than those which haven't been, so it should be fine to just let the community add templates to extra pages as they come to notice. Zero^talk 05:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, based on wikiproject membership intersections there may be somewhere between 7000 and 8000 talk pages for things within the topic area in part or whole altogether, who knows. I've added almost a 1000 in the past couple of days, mostly for easy unambiguous cases. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The version of the talk notice that defaulted to "parts of" is no longer live, so that difference in defaults is resolved. (Though I wasn't assuming that |section=yes would change the text of both templates, just that adding that parameter would be a way to negate the inference that an ECP'd page with a PIA talk notice is most likely a primary article.) SilverLocust 💬 08:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this where you appeal a biased page editor?

Myself and a few others have pointed out obvious bias on a contentious topic page around the characterization of a topic as pseudoscience vs fringe science. However the editor(s) with admin privileges are stubborn and biased. Is this where one could make an appeal? Other online encyclopedias disagree with the approach the admins have taken. BeLikeBritannica (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is the wrong place. You would want either the talk page or Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. However, I suspect you are not going to have any luck disputing the characterisation of Intelligent Design, as it easily fits into the category of pseudoscience (i.e. non-scientific theories that claim to be scientific). Black Kite (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So all the senior editors on Wikipedia are overtly biased. Gotcha. BeLikeBritannica (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The great lesson of postmodernism (I am not a postmodernist myself) is that all people are biased. "Unbiased people" are people who live in a permanent intellectual state of chaos. See WP:GOODBIAS.

E.g., a judge is not unbiased-NOS. A judge is biased for the law of the land. A judge is biased for the facts. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]