| Revision as of 10:53, 16 March 2014 editSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,256 edits →The Mailing List← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:15, 8 December 2024 edit undoIzno (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Interface administrators, Administrators113,430 edits →WP:A/C alignment: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| = Noticeboard = | = Noticeboard = | ||
| {{/Header}} | {{/Header}} | ||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| | age=90 | |||
| ---- | |||
| | archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/archive | |||
| :'''''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.'' | |||
| | numberstart=10 | |||
| | maxarchsize=150000 | |||
| == Arbitrator announcements == | |||
| | header={{Archive}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Current Members}} | |||
| | minkeepthreads=2 | |||
| | minarchthreads=1 | |||
| :''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 page).'' | |||
| | format= %%i | |||
| }} | |||
| == Long term projects == | |||
| {{archive box|search =yes| | |||
| * ] (to 26 January 2006) | |||
| = Discussion = | |||
| * ] (to 28 January 2006) | |||
| :'''''Please use this section if you are not a clerk or arbitrator, but require clerical assistance.''''' | |||
| {{archive box|search=yes| | |||
| * ] (to 26 January, 2006) | |||
| * ] (to 28 January, 2006) | |||
| * ] (archive of a discussion started on January 29, 2006 at the ]) | * ] (archive of a discussion started on January 29, 2006 at the ]) | ||
| * ] (to 28 January |
* ] (to 28 January 2006) | ||
| * ] (February 2006→December 2008, clerks' coordination board) | |||
| * ] (to May 2009) | |||
| * ] (December 2008→March 2010, clerks' coordination board) | |||
| * ] (noticeboard merged→Jun 2012) | |||
| * ] ( |
* ] (January 2006→May 2009) | ||
| * ] (May 2009→June 2012, noticeboard merged) | |||
| * ] (June 2012→September 2014) | |||
| * ] (September 2014→September 2015) | |||
| * ] (3 October→4 November 2015) | |||
| * ] (October 2015→March 2021) | |||
| * ] (April 2021→present) | |||
| {{#ifexist:Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/archive 12|* ] (fill in dates please)|}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| __TOC__ | |||
| <div style="border-top: 1px solid #aaa; font-style: italic; padding-left: 1.6em"> | |||
| '''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. | |||
| </div> | |||
| == ARBPIA5 motion at ARCA == | |||
| Refers to ]. | |||
| == Net Four on "Kafziel's AfC actions" request == | |||
| If I understand correctly (only because I am trying to help clarify for dissenting Arbs) vote makes the net four procedure no longer valid. Am I correct in this evaluation, or have I missed the fact that the net was valid at one point therefore the procedure is still good to go. ] (]) 01:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes that's correct, although only one more accept vote is needed for their to be a majority to accept. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Annother ping. It appears that we have Absolute Majority + (24 hours expired since this majority) + (48 hours since request was filed) criteria being fufilled. Any ETA on the case being opened, or is there a behind the scenes discussion by the committee to dispose of the case expediently? ] (]) 16:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :It's more of a behind the scenes discussion regarding who is going to clerk both of the cases open now, and waiting on the Committee to give us the go-ahead to open them. --''']]]''' 21:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Apologies for the delay, but I think we have it all figured out, and Kafziel should be opening within about 12 hours or so. --''']]]''' 01:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Dan Murphy == | |||
| Could someone please add the following to the pending case request about Dan Murphy--thanks. | |||
| ===Comment of 50.0.121.102 === | |||
| Since arbcom is the last step of Misplaced Pages dispute resolution, I don't agree with 28bytes' view that ] that chills a Misplaced Pages editor's participation in Misplaced Pages (as surely happened to 28bytes) is outside Arbcom purview. It is clearly within the scope of on-wiki DR. If someone else got outed off-wiki and wanted to pursue on-wiki remedies, they certainly should be entitled to do so. I could go along with Arbcom dropping the case at hand because 28bytes doesn't want to pursue it, and I could see declining it because there haven't been prior attempts at resolution. Normally something like this would first be brought up at AN or ANI, I would think, especially since the relevant private info is already out of the bag. But that's all specific to this particular incident. ] (]) 23:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :And you are...? --] (] · ] · ]) 09:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Kafziel Workshop Closure Date == | |||
| Per which appears to have been conducted behind the scenes, I would like a summary of who requested the change, if the primary clerk for the case ({{U|Callanecc}}) had signed off on this change, if the drafting Arbiter ({{U|Risker}}) approved of this change, what debate there was about said change, why (as the editor primarily bringing the action) that I was not informed of this change, and how I may go about appealing this behind the scenes change. I ask because I've now had to defend myself against a competing set of workshop proposals that reads straight from the viewpoint of Kafziel that would have been ruled outside the workshop deadline as I am assuming good faith at the extension. ] (]) 15:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :This was at the request of Risker, because she has proposals that she wants to make before moving forward with the proposed decision. --''']]]''' 17:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == non admin logging DS == | |||
| Please see and related ]. 12:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Proposed decision implementation notes == | |||
| I would like to draw the clerks attention to the implementaion notes on this case. The last note update was over 48 hours ago, and several Arbitrators have voted causing some of the propositions to move into passing, others needing updates on the margins still necessary for passing, and ''iff'' supports that need to be indicated. ] (]) 15:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == RfAr: Gun control == | |||
| I've spoken with Seraphimblade and we concur about extending the closing of the evidence phase until 23:59 (UTC) on 25th January and to push back the other target dates accordingly. I've mentioned this on the case pages . Could one of the clerks please action this? Thanks v.m. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration Clerks seeking new volunteers == | |||
| The Arbitration Committee clerks are currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors willing to serve as ]. The responsibilities of clerks include opening and closing arbitration cases and motions; notifying parties of cases, decisions, and other committee actions; maintaining ]; preserving order and proper formatting on case pages; and other administrative and related tasks they may be requested to handle by the arbitrators. Clerks are the unsung heroes of the arbitration process, keeping track of details to ensure that requests are handled in a timely and efficient manner. Clerks get front-line seats to the political and ethnic warfare that scorches Misplaced Pages periodically, and, since they aren't arbitrators themselves, are rarely threatened with violence by the participants. | |||
| Past clerks have gone on to be <small>(or already were)</small> successful lawyers, naval officers, and Presidents of Wikimedia Chapters. The salary and retirement packages for Clerks rival that of Arbitrators, to boot. Best of all, you get a cool ]! | |||
| Please email {{NoSpamEmail|clerks-l|lists.wikimedia.org}} if you are interested in becoming a clerk, and a clerk will reply with an acknowledgement of your message and any questions we want to put to you. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee clerks, ''']]]''' 04:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : ] | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2014 == | |||
| {{Edit semi-protected|<!-- Page to be edited -->|answered=yes}} | |||
| <!-- Begin request --> | |||
| <!-- End request --> | |||
| ] (]) 19:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You've made no request.--] (]) 19:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Partial inactivity == | |||
| For motion 5 (ARBPIA5) it states that there are 10 active arbs and since 1 has abstained, 5 is a majority. However, L235 (an inactive arb) has voted on it, so the majority needs to be altered to 6. | |||
| Please note that I've marked myself . Effectively that's everything apart from the Gun control case and the discretionary sanctions review. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I'm unsure if that affects the numbers for any of the other motions (or indeed any other cases) but it clearly does for this one. ] 20:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == The Mailing List == | |||
| :Marked as active on the one motion. ], we'll assume you're not active on the other 6 motions unless you indicate otherwise or vote on them. ] ] 20:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I received it. The default setting is to not have it emailed to you. You can also always check the mailing list archives to see if it sent. --''']]]''' 19:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for the reply. My setting must have been reset or something because I've gotten the emails in the past.--] (]) 22:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] alignment == | |||
| I also wonder whether something changed on mailman... I had the same issues on two other mailing lists (not this one). ]<sub>]</sub> 22:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The box at ] used to be on the left side of the page. There is a parameter used in {{tl|ArbComOpenTasks}} called {{para|acotalign|left}}, but that parameter seems to no longer do anything, and the box now floats way down bottom-right. I tried a few things to fix this but they didn't work. Complicating things, for whatever reason the box floats left in preview. Any ideas? <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 06:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I do not appear to be getting any emails from the list. I checked my list settings on the archive site and they are appear to be fine. Any suggestions?--] (]) 22:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :], it looks fine on my screen? It appears that {{para|acotalign}} was removed ], so that parameter has been worthless for over a decade at this point. <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 02:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Log entry removals at ]== | |||
| ::@]: What skin are you using? I'm using Vector-22. Checking now, it does align left in Vector. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| On the case page ], a non-admin editor, {{u|NE Ent}} (), and an editor who is the subject of log entries, {{u|Neotarf}} (), are removing log entries from the arbitration case page, including the log entries of warnings against which the Committee previously . This appears to me to be a disruption of the arbitration process. I am asking arbitration clerks to determine which if any version of the page should be restored. There is also an ongoing ] discussion about related matters. Thanks, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::], I am a Vector 2010 user; probably should've though to check the default skin! I don't see enough space to have it left-aligned while still keeping the other two sidebars. Thinking <del>out loud</del> <ins>in writing</ins>, do we need the dispute resolution sidebar there? It is not a current arbitration request. Thinking even more in print, I am wondering if WP:A/C can be BLAR'd to ], which has all of the information at WP:A/C and more. <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 03:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I find A/C a very helpful page to access ArbCom recent changes without having to load a whole noticeboard. Seemingly . Would there be some way to make ACOT's total width flexible? At the moment it looks like all the widths are hardcoded. Alternately, ] works. It's a little ugly with the DR template down there, but putting three sidebars together is gonna look a little ugly no matter what. Or as a third option, you could force all three boxen into a table. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, it was an idea. Happy to keep it around if people find it useful :){{pb}}Forcing all three into a table looks even worse on my screen. It forces ACOT to be super narrow. I think your proposed edit (moving the least relevant item to drop below) is the least bad option which does not involve {{User:Tamzin/The diaeresis|re|i|nventing}} the wheel. If someone wants to work on making ACOT's width flexible, I think that would be awesome, but with ] I am reluctant to sign up for doing that myself. Happy to let you do the honors of reinstating your edit; also happy to do it myself. <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 03:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Parameters to set widths on pages, or arbitrary floats, inhibit display at mobile resolution. Setting width is a no-go from that perspective. Setting a different kind of float is possible in TemplateStyles and if that's pursued should be pursued there. ] (]) 04:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:15, 8 December 2024
Noticeboard
Clerks' noticeboard (shortcut WP:AC/CN)Clerks' Noticeboard
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
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-l
lists.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 located here.
 Archives |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III 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.
ARBPIA5 motion at ARCA
Refers to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Motion_5:_PIA5_Case.
For motion 5 (ARBPIA5) it states that there are 10 active arbs and since 1 has abstained, 5 is a majority. However, L235 (an inactive arb) has voted on it, so the majority needs to be altered to 6.
I'm unsure if that affects the numbers for any of the other motions (or indeed any other cases) but it clearly does for this one. Black Kite (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Marked as active on the one motion. L235, we'll assume you're not active on the other 6 motions unless you indicate otherwise or vote on them. SilverLocust 💬 20:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
WP:A/C alignment
The box at WP:A/C used to be on the left side of the page. There is a parameter used in {{ArbComOpenTasks}} called |acotalign=left, but that parameter seems to no longer do anything, and the box now floats way down bottom-right. I tried a few things to fix this but they didn't work. Complicating things, for whatever reason the box floats left in preview. Any ideas? -- Tamzin (they|xe) 06:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Tamzin, it looks fine on my screen? It appears that
|acotalign=was removed in 2012, so that parameter has been worthless for over a decade at this point. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)- @HouseBlaster: What skin are you using? I'm using Vector-22. Checking now, it does align left in Vector. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Tamzin, I am a Vector 2010 user; probably should've though to check the default skin! I don't see enough space to have it left-aligned while still keeping the other two sidebars. Thinking
out loudin writing, do we need the dispute resolution sidebar there? It is not a current arbitration request. Thinking even more in print, I am wondering if WP:A/C can be BLAR'd to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests, which has all of the information at WP:A/C and more. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)- I find A/C a very helpful page to access ArbCom recent changes without having to load a whole noticeboard. Seemingly many others do too. Would there be some way to make ACOT's total width flexible? At the moment it looks like all the widths are hardcoded. Alternately, this works. It's a little ugly with the DR template down there, but putting three sidebars together is gonna look a little ugly no matter what. Or as a third option, you could force all three boxen into a table. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it was an idea. Happy to keep it around if people find it useful :)Forcing all three into a table looks even worse on my screen. It forces ACOT to be super narrow. I think your proposed edit (moving the least relevant item to drop below) is the least bad option which does not involve reïnventing the wheel. If someone wants to work on making ACOT's width flexible, I think that would be awesome, but with current stuff I am reluctant to sign up for doing that myself. Happy to let you do the honors of reinstating your edit; also happy to do it myself. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Parameters to set widths on pages, or arbitrary floats, inhibit display at mobile resolution. Setting width is a no-go from that perspective. Setting a different kind of float is possible in TemplateStyles and if that's pursued should be pursued there. Izno (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I find A/C a very helpful page to access ArbCom recent changes without having to load a whole noticeboard. Seemingly many others do too. Would there be some way to make ACOT's total width flexible? At the moment it looks like all the widths are hardcoded. Alternately, this works. It's a little ugly with the DR template down there, but putting three sidebars together is gonna look a little ugly no matter what. Or as a third option, you could force all three boxen into a table. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Tamzin, I am a Vector 2010 user; probably should've though to check the default skin! I don't see enough space to have it left-aligned while still keeping the other two sidebars. Thinking
- @HouseBlaster: What skin are you using? I'm using Vector-22. Checking now, it does align left in Vector. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)