| Revision as of 10:07, 21 April 2008 view sourceRlevse (talk | contribs)93,195 edits →To be opened: opened← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 05:57, 1 May 2024 view source Anachronist (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, IP block exemptions, Administrators67,295 edits Wrong namespace |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard/Header}} |
|
#REDIRECT ] |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
==Pending actions== |
|
|
:'''''Clerks and trainees''', please coordinate your actions through this section, so that we don't have multiple clerks working on the same cases at the same time. An IRC channel, and a are also available, although the mailing list is low traffic and has a public archive.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Redirect category shell| |
|
===To be opened=== |
|
|
|
{{R from merge}} |
|
:''Cases may be opened by clerks or trainees 24 hours after the fourth '''net''' vote to accept has been made.'' |
|
|
|
{{R to talk page}} |
|
|
{{R from subpage}} |
|
|
{{R to subpage}} |
|
|
}}<!-- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This page is obsolete and kept for historical purposes, please use the page above for new comments. --> |
|
=== Motions and temporary injunctions === |
|
|
:''Motions and temporary injunctions are made by arbitrators on /Proposed decision. Temporary injunctions require 4 net support votes to pass (each "oppose" subtracts a "support"). Other motions have the same majority for passage as the case itself.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
===To be closed=== |
|
|
:''Cases may be closed by clerks or trainees after the fourth '''net''' vote to close, but generally wait at least 24 hours after the first motion to close. In cases where the arbitrators have disagreed and not all the findings or remedies have passed, wait at least 24 hours after the '''final''' close vote is cast to give other arbitrators a chance to raise objections.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
===Reassignment/breaks=== |
|
|
:''Generally, the clerk or trainee who opens a case should follow the progress of the case and be available to answer questions from the parties. If for any reason you need someone to take over one or more of your current cases (too busy, wikibreak, etc.), post a request here.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
*You guys are probably aware of this already, but I'm on a partial wiki-break in the sense that I'm not active on wiki because of real life things that must be dealt with (curse of me being a student!). Should I be needed, though, mailing list as well as my talk page are ways to get me. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 20:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
**No problem. You're not currently on a case, anyway, so this shouldn't be a problem. Good luck with exams and whatnot. ] 15:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*My router has died, and I'm currently unavailable, until a replacement arrives. Except (like now) when I can pop into an internet cafe, I'll be completely unavailable. My only case is now closed, so this shouldn't be a problem, but just a heads up. ] 14:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Other work=== |
|
|
:''Discussion for all other and miscellaneous issues, that are not covered by the above sections, but are related to a particular case. Please note that general discussion related to the arbitration process and clerking should go to ], rather than here.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
== Active/Inactive Arbitrators == |
|
|
|
|
|
===General list=== |
|
|
:''This list will be used to set the number of active Arbitrators and the case majority on cases as they open. As of ], ], there are 12 active Arbitrators, so the majority is 7 for '''new''' cases (that is, those accepted after the "as of" date). The master list is at ].'' |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Active''': |
|
|
#Blnguyen |
|
|
#Charles Matthews |
|
|
#FayssalF |
|
|
#FloNight |
|
|
#FT2 |
|
|
#Jdforrester |
|
|
#Jpgordon |
|
|
#Kirill Lokshin |
|
|
#Matthew Brown (Morven) |
|
|
#Paul August |
|
|
#Sam Blacketer |
|
|
#Thebainer |
|
|
#UninvitedCompany |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Away or inactive''': |
|
|
#Deskana |
|
|
#Newyorkbrad |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Arbitrator announcements === |
|
|
:''Arbitrators, please note if you wish to declare yourself active or away/inactive, either generally or for specific cases. The clerks will update the relevant cases as needed. If you are returning, please indicate whether you wish to be: 1) Put back to active on all cases; 2) Left on inactive on all open cases, and only put to active on new cases; or 3) Left to set yourself to active on cases you wish (remember to update the majority on its /Proposed decision).'' |
|
|
* I'm away until Apr 19. I will move myself to active or inactive as desired. Thanks. ] ] 15:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
**Thanks for making advance arrangements: I imagine everybody appreciates it :) Regards, ] 19:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
***I'm back. I will move myself to active on open cases as desired. Thanks. ] ] 16:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== General discussion == |
|
|
===Proposals on post-close motions etc.=== |
|
|
. Cheers, ] (]) 22:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree that the section's existence is confusing, and is better left out. It's not that difficult to put it back in if needed. — ] <sup>]</sup> 00:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm sure our intelligent arbitrators will realise to put the section in as they need it :) ] (]) 01:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I already noted my thoughts on this in the Clerks' IRC channel, but I would like to publicly note that I support this change. It will help pre-empt any mistaken additions of proposals into the Arbitrators' voting section—it's a very reasonable for a party to try and "hand" the arb's proposals to vote on, if they are not aware that this is not the case—which have recently arisen :) ] 22:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:On the same topic: is ], currently linked at the bottom of {{t1|ArbComOpenTasks}}, now redundant to the arbitrator-placed sections on ]? Or should arbitrators be making the motions on /Motions independant to all the other discussions, rather than as subsections on /Clarifications and motions? If not, should we change the link on {{t1|ArbComOpenTasks}} to point to /Clarifications and motions? Questions galore :) ] (]) 01:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I liked the entire page the way it was three months ago.... ] (]) 02:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::What, nearly empty? :) Agreed, though — I don't think we need a separate page for motions and clarifications, and they'll just get neglected more. The vote-only page, in my opinion, is also unnecessary. ] (]) 02:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::For example, there hasn't been a single edit to that page beyond basic formatting fixing since it was split on April 5. Motions and clarifications are neglected enough as it is :( ] (]) 02:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I liked the "clarifications" section to be much more free-form rather than structured as it is now. In discussion on the mailing list I was outvoted, but maybe I'll change it back one day and see if anyone notices. :) ] (]) 02:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::]. :) ] (]) 02:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:The problem was, the main RFArb page was hard to navigate - seperating requests and clarifications/motions help organise things better. All it takes is to click one button to watchlist the new page.... ] 02:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::In fact, I am of a similar school of thought to that of Newyorkbrad here: the rigorous, structured approach we have to RfAr is, I feel, not completely compatible with the Clarifications process. Granted, some sort of organisation is required, both to allow for easier navigation, and easier implementation of decisions (i.e., to make the Clerks' job easier :). The current Clarifications template's approach had the advantage of keeping things neat and to the point: the headings involved in such threads were no longer 8+ words long, which by extension, prevented the 90+%-wide TOC seen on RfAr, which I had attempted but failed to remedy with a width-restricted table of contents some time ago. Now that that is no longer such a problem (the Clarifications page's front matter is much less bulky than WP:RfAr's), I think it would be beneficial to look at some sort of rethinking regarding the RfAr/Clarifications template. That may well be a little into the future—from Brad's above comment, it seems the AC has rejected the idea of such a reorganisation—but I do hope it eventually comes along. ] 15:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Correction=== |
|
|
Correction to the arbitration template needs to be made. I believe this occurred when the template was copied over. I have suggested the needed change on the ]. I have already changed the current cases to reflect the correct spelling. Thank you for your time, <span style="background:#000000">]]</span> 02:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC) |
|