Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:02, 7 January 2009

Clerks' Noticeboard

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

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are 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 located here.

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, #wikipedia-en-arbcom-clerks, and a mailing list, Clerks-l, are also available for private co-ordination and communication, although the mailing list is fairly low traffic.

To be opened

Cases may be opened by clerks or trainees 24 hours after the fourth net vote to accept has been made, and only after 48 hours since the request has been filed; see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy#Requests.

• In the event TTN becomes a case - how many clerks/trainees do we have that won't be recused? Seems to be one of those far reaching ones. --Tznkai (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't! :p - Penwhale | 20:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I can help with that one. Tiptoety 03:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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, as detailed on the /Proposed_decision talk page.

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. Motions and requests for amendment (matters that are not a "full case") that ought to be closed can be discussed here also.

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.

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 #General discussion, rather than here.

• Someone pls archive Paranormal from RFAR. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm the case clerk in the related case so I'll get someone else to, just to avoid any possible suggestions of impropriety. Daniel (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Tznkai (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Unless you hear from the committee otherwise, close the E&C 3 RFAR 24 hours from note. Make a note in the summary that is "closed without prejudice". — Rlevse • Talk • 22:02, 7 January 2009 (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 1 January 2009, there are 16 active Arbitrators, and the majority is therefore 9 for all new cases (that is, those accepted after the "as of" date). See WP:AC/C/P#Calculating the majority for help. The master list is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee#Current members.

Active (as of 01 Jan 2009):

1. Carcharoth
2. Casliber
3. Cool Hand Luke
4. Coren
5. FayssalF
6. FloNight
7. FT2
8. Jayvdb
9. Kirill Lokshin
10. Newyorkbrad
11. Risker
12. Rlevse
13. Roger Davies
14. Stephen Bain
15. Vassyana
16. Wizardman
17. Sam Blacketer

Away or inactive:

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 page).

• I've effectively been inactive while getting up to speed. I intend to be fully active from tomorrow (1st January), so no need to change anything in terms of activity status, I think. I do intend to do a run through RFAR, so that might be something to bear in mind when processing current requests. If waiting for me to do that run through RFAR would complicate things, please don't wait, though there may be other considerations as well. I did find a template somewhere where active and inactive status can be indicated on a case by case basis. Do we (as arbitrators) edit that template to indicate per-case status if a case opened in our absence (in this case, the cases still open on 1 January), or do we leave a note here? Carcharoth (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• You can either edit {{ACA}} (I think) or leave a note here. The normal procedure is that incoming arbitrators are inactive on all active cases opened prior to January 1 unless declared otherwise. I don't recall about the votes to accept/decline requests in that regard, though. - Penwhale | 19:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've moved myself to active on the PHG case, but not Ireland names or Scientology. I was already active on Fringe science, for some reason. Should I formally put myself under "inactive" for Ireland names and Scientology, or is just not saying you are active enough during this incoming phase? Carcharoth (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I moved myself to active on all three currently opened cases; I expect I will not be the only one— in a day or so could a clerk please go though the appropriate spots to insure the majorities are okay? — Coren  02:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• I moved myself to active on Scientology and PHG. I stay recused on Fringe Science. Leave me not active on Ireland names. As Coren, clerks will need to update totals on cases after more new arbs decide their status. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Per his request on the mailing list, I've removed the retiring Morven from the list of active arbs and from all the transition cases at {{ACA}}. Please tidy up after me if I've missed anything :) --bainer (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, changing {{ACA}} doesn't solve the change of majority count on the pd pages; that still needs to be manually fixed (which I've subsequently done) - Penwhale | 13:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• From email, Matthew Brown said to mark him inactive on all open cases. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• You're about 5 hours late on that one, sir :3 - Penwhale | 18:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

General discussion

New ArbComBot

It seems your bot has been dead for a while, could I interest you in a new ArbComBot 3000? New features include <stuff you want>! BJ 14:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait, isn't the ArbComBot 3000 the model that the time traveler warned us would go rogue and kill everyone?  :-) — Coren  15:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Better is good. Talk to User:Cbrown1023 about the old one. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A new Bot would be fantastic, Bjweeks…

If you're willing to write us one, we'd put it to work immediately. ;-)

AGK 11:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The main feature I would like is to be able to view the counts of each requested case without loading RFAR, and ideally a summary email sent to clerks-l and arbcom-l every day, or posted onto a wiki page - a page that can be easily loaded on a dialup connection or a mobile phone. I am often without broadband internet (or time for internet) for days at a time, but would be able to get involved if it was obvious that was required - WP:RFAR often fails to load for me on dialup, and reading all of arbcom-l isnt a good way to catch up and focus on the important tasks that need arb activity. John Vandenberg 10:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is rather old. Is anything happening here? Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we are all hopefully waiting for Bjweeks to respond with his master plan for the best ArbCom bot ever. :-) Tiptoety 00:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Request Clerking

As things stand currently, a case is assigned to at least one clerk, who serves as the paper pusher extraordinaire / point of contact / main traffic cop on that case - while other clerks are allowed to/expected to jump in as needed. With pending requests and motions on WP:RFAR we are less organized, and more than a few times the clerk notes area is used by non clerks for various means. With the increasing frequency of motions (which I have no reason to believe will slow appreciably) and complexity of cases (definitely going to get worse before it gets better) do we want to start assigning clerks to pending requests (be they for arbitration, clarification, or amendment)?--Tznkai (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed. However, we need to get more on-top-of statement lengths/people replying in other people's section etc. as a group rather than an individual. Daniel (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)