Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:52, 7 January 2008

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

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.

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.

A procedural reference for clerks (and arbitrators) is located here.

Pending actions

Clerks and informal helpers, 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, #wikipedia-en-arbcom-clerks and a mailing list are also available, although the mailing list is low traffic and has a public archive.

To be opened

Cases may be opened 24 hours after the fourth net vote to accept has been made.

• If the Mattsanchez case opens, Cbrown1023 and I, Rlevse, have to recuse due to involvement in prior attempts are resolving various issues in this case. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  Happy to take this if needed (to be opened late January 7), although John, Coren or an appointed clerk (the other two trainees being recused or away) may wish to instead which seems fine. Daniel 07:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • • Has a net of 4 now, the 24 hours is up 20:37 UTC on 7 Jan. My suggest is trying to coordinate with Jayvdb so he can assist with it. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I could handle it (Highways 2 is about as calm and maintenance-free an arb as I've ever seen), but it would be nice if Jayvdb got the chance to try his hand at a case opening too. Count me as 'available backup' if nobody is able to otherwise take it, but give priority to Jayvdb if he wants it. — Coren  19:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I can do the opening then; the backup would be appreciated Coren, thanks. John Vandenberg (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Case has been opened as Bluemarine with only a few minor hiccups. John Vandenberg (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• IF A-A 3 gets opened in any format, I'd recuse from that, as I already dealt with the first 2 cases and got tangled up. - Penwhale | 13:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Motions and temporary injunctions

Motions and temporary injunctions are made by arbitrators on /Proposed decision, and have the same majority for passage as the case itself.

To be closed

Cases may be closed after 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.

• The motion in Liancourt Rocks has passed and closes tomorrow unless the vote changes. This would be a good task for a helper or trainee; copy the motion to the case page under final decision, with the date and the vote tally, and post a notice on the talk page of the article. Thatcher 17:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Also add the remedy to Misplaced Pages:General sanctions. Jehochman 17:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'll take care of it once the egg timer goes "Ding!" — Coren  20:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Reassignment/breaks

Generally, the clerk 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.

• AGK – I shall be operating under reduced activity until approximately 1 February. I should still be able to manage my cases, but I'd appreciate it if the other Clerks keep an eye on mine, and don't hesitate to act in lieu of me: I'd much appreciate it ;) Thanks much, all. Anthøny 17:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship co-ordination

This section is used for discussion between trainee clerks (listed here) and appointed clerks, including the trainee's mentor, for issues which fall outside the above sections and require discussion.

• I need some opinions at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2/Evidence from appointed clerks. I asked one appointed clerk who said my statement was "fine", but the ensuing discussion has raised a number of issues which are general policy- and procedure-like discussion. Thanks, Daniel 09:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As I'm not sure you want us to respond there or here, I'm doing it here. I agree that striking it is better than deleting it. A big reason is as it's an arb case, someone could comment on it and then it get deleted, then it's changed, then we may not know why the comment was made. Arb cases need to strive hard to avoid appearance of imporpriety, so striking is better than deleting. As for the 1000 word, 100 diff limit, this needs discussed too. This has come up in many cases recently, including my Z-SG case. It's a guideline, not a hard rule. The bottom line is that we don't want to stifle valid evidence and if it takes 1500 words and 150 diffs, let it--links to a subpage are an option too. In such a case, the editor needs to be reminded that excessive unfocused prose will distract from the points he/she is trying to make. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The point really is that in most cases you do not need 150 diffs to show something (unless it's against more than a handful of editors). Like others have mentioned, it does make it hard for ArbCom to focus on too many diffs; dilutes their vision. - Penwhale | 13:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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 January 5, 2008, there are 14 active Arbitrators, so the majority is 8 for new cases.

Active:

1. Blnguyen
2. Deskana
3. FayssalF
4. FloNight
5. FT2
6. Jdforrester
7. Jpgordon
8. Kirill Lokshin
9. Matthew Brown (Morven)
10. Newyorkbrad
11. Paul August
12. Sam Blacketer
13. Thebainer
14. UninvitedCompany

Away/inactive:

1. Charles Matthews

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.

• Paul August - I'm back. Please leave me inactive on cases opened while I was away. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 14:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No worries, welcome back. Anthøny 15:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

General discussion

Willing to help out

I'm willing to help out with clerking. I've been doing a little work already around requests for arbitraton.--Phoenix-wiki  21:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help out in any way needed, too. I've been monitoring the main RFAR page for a bit, and giving informal housekeeping-type help there of the kind the clerks welcome. I'll just keep doing that if that's all that's needed now, but I thought I'd list myself as willing to do more if there's need. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

<aol>Me too!</aol> I expect that with NYB's "ascension" and the other appointments there will be a rush of work, and I'm around to give a hand if needed. — Coren  05:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for volunteering to help out! It comes at a great time because a lot of our current clerks are busy with other things or on wikibreak. Please make sure you all read WP:AC/C/P and use this noticeboard to coordinate if need be. Thanks again! :-) Cbrown1023 talk 07:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I had previously offered to help. Unfortunately, I would have to recuse from all the cases where I am involved, but that's no more than 50% of them. Jehochman 02:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also interested in clerking. I have already read WP:AC/C/P. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good, well, the stuff we basically do is fix the level of headings, rename cases to more suitable names and fix up the formatting of requests that...er...haven't been formatted properly, though leave it to the clerks to open and close cases ;-)--Phoenix-wiki 16:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I appologise for this in advance because I really don't want to tread on anyones toes but I'd also like to help out. I've been active in arbitration for some time and fully understand the process - I'd be happy to help out wherever needed. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You could help me catalog all the past editing restrictions. See Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions. You can look at completed arbitration requests from August 2007 and work backwards from there. Jehochman 02:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm on it...--Phoenix-wiki 12:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Also like to help out as well, however (after recent events, see now archived "Incorrect clerking" topic in diffs) I will/should request a mentoring agreement. I should also apologize after how I conducted myself on this board last month. I now realize that what I have done could have disrupted the whole RfArb page. I will not do it again if I become a full time official clerk. --- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Change to workshop page structure

We've decided to implement a modified structure for the workshop pages; every user is to have a separate section in which to make proposals, similar to how the evidence page is set up:

Proposals by User:X

Proposed principles {same as current templates}

Proposed findings of fact {same as current templates}

Proposed remedies {same as current templates}

Proposed enforcement {same as current templates}

Proposals by User:Y

Proposed principles {same as current templates}

Proposed findings of fact {same as current templates}

Proposed remedies {same as current templates}

Proposed enforcement {same as current templates}

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles {same as current templates}

Proposed findings of fact {same as current templates}

Proposed remedies {same as current templates}

Proposed enforcement {same as current templates}

Could someone more familiar with the current set of case page templates please implement this. Thanks! Kirill 18:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have implemented as best I can your directions. Each user has their own level 2 header ("Proposals by User:X"), with four level 3 headers, each reading "Proposed Principles/Findings of Fact/etc...". Under each of these four headers, there are two level four headers, with the template to make the relevant type of proposal.

You can check over the changes at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop, and comment as necessary. I hope this meets your requirements, and don't hesitate to request further changes, or provide further direction if the change isn't up to scratch. Cheers, Anthøny 18:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for making the changes! Kirill 18:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought, but perhaps guidance should be given that each user should not try to write a complete decision? This system runs the risk of a lot of duplicated proposals if users are under the impression that they should submit a complete set of proposals. As it is, I wonder if users are going to be more likely under this system to add their own (slightly different) version of someone else's proposal instead of expressing broad agreement in someone else's section. I can see the merits of the idea, but worry that the size of workshop pages - which are already seen as overly long - could swell as a result. WjBscribe 18:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Count me extremely dubious. Thatcher 18:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't comment either way at the moment. I just implemented what the ArbCom directed :) Anthøny 18:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

An important implementation question: Does this mean that editors are discouraged (or even forbidden) to comment in another's section? If so, should clerks be moving such responses/arguments to the talk page systematically? — Coren  19:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they can still comment; that's why the old templates are used. The intent is only to limit proposing actual findings to separate sections. Kirill 19:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Then I must admit I am a little befuddled as to what the ultimate objective the arbs hope to achieve by that change might be. I expect we'll be in a better position to help you guys get there if we know what you are trying to do? — Coren  20:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons—some more theoretical, at this point, than others—but the chief point of this, as far as I'm concerned, is limiting the effect of particularly unreasonable individuals on the usability of the workshop for drafting. Kirill 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification from the Committee on Misplaced Pages:General sanctions and Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions

In the past, various users have attempted to keep lists of editors under sanction, most of which have withered on the vine through lack of attention. The previous Committee expressed zero interest in maintaining or having maintained the list of users on probation at Misplaced Pages:Probation. Is it the Committee's intent that Misplaced Pages:General sanctions and Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions shall be an official document, to be maintained by the Committee and its clerks? Or is this an unofficial volunteer effort of its editors, to be maintained on a volunteer basis. Thatcher 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher raises a valid question, although it should be noted that User:Kirill Lokshin started both pages. They serve a valid purpose because it is not efficient to scan the entire list of completed requests in order to discover if a particular article or editor is subject to restrictions. I believe the pages were started because the new ArbCom wanted to review all existing sanctions and restrictions. Once the lists exist, I think it makes sense to maintain them. Jehochman 18:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

They are not, at this point, "official" in the sense of being formally approved by the Committee as a whole; I basically started them as a personal project, since not having a canonical list has made extra work for me before. Having said that, I see no reason why they cannot be maintained in the future; certainly, having such lists available would make it much easier for people to request enforcement of the restrictions. Kirill 19:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it would be much easier to find. I was planning to add to the pages but unfortunatly the prefixindex doesn't sort by date, making it much harder. :-(--Phoenix-wiki 19:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)