Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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.

Iranian dissidents and opposition movements[edit]

Hi, please check my contributions National Council of Resistance of Iran and its talk page.

Although relatively new to this subject matter, I have contributed to these in good-faith and what I believe to be a competent manner, and I believe that the WP:Verified facts that I've contributed, are allowed by our content policy. Please confirm that they are not "synthetic " statements of WP:Original research, which I understand are forbidden and agree to not make. Or else instruct - Have I inadvertently done "Synth"? Or are there other problems with my contributions of which I should be aware? Thanks for your help.

Also please review my contributions to and proposed move of The_future_of_Iran’s_democracy_movement, currently in AfD.

Another editor has alleged that I've made "Synthetic claims", relying on an overly broad mis-application (IMHO), of an earlier AfD on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iranian_Democracy_Movement. I understand and accept the decision and rationale of the closing admin in that case, @Vanamonde93, but I think it does not apply in the context of these other articles in the way the adverse editor thinks that it does. I thought we had agreed to 'ana-lyze' - which is the opposite of synthesize - and then merge the now-deleted article's content, and the other editor appears to believe that none of it is now acceptable anywhere.

If you could educate us on the Content policy and how it applies in this case, it may help to avoid misunderstanding.

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jaredscribe. I'm afraid this isn't the right place for your questions; the Arbitration Committee does not rule on content matters. Fear not, there are a variety of options available for dispute resolution, which can get other folks opinion on an issue. But be careful not to WP:CANVASS people to your discussion. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jaredscribe ah realize I didn't ping you, I'm still used to Enterprisey's reply tool. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @CaptainEek this is the first time I've gone to any of these places within the wiki bureaucracy, I think I will do the OR noticeboard since that is the policy in question. Sorry about that. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jaredscribe, I suggest holding off of the noticeboard for the moment. The editor you are in dispute with hasn't edited since your post to the talk page yesterday. You need to give them time; opening multiple discussions isn't going to make them respond any sooner. If you remain in disagreement after a discussion on the talk page, going to WP:ORN might be more helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
:) Enterprisey (talk!) 05:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote counts at WP:ARBSCE[edit]

Hi, I noticed some discrepancies between the recorded vote totals at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision:

DanCherek (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DanCherek, thanks for raising this. This is likely because the implementation notes in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision § Implementation notes were not updated when the case was closed. As such, the counts from the outdated notes (instead of the actual voting sections) could have been used when posting the final decision.
I will fix these now. Thanks and happy editing, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]