Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rlevse (talk | contribs) at 10:07, 21 April 2008 (→To be opened: opened). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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).

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.

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 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 are also available, although the mailing list is low traffic and has a public archive.

To be opened

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

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. - Penwhale | 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. Anthøny 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. Anthøny 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 #General discussion, 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 April 17, 2008, 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 WP:AC#Members.

Active:

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

Away or inactive:

1. Deskana
2. 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. Paul August ☎ 15:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for making advance arrangements: I imagine everybody appreciates it :) Regards, Anthøny 19:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm back. I will move myself to active on open cases as desired. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 16:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

General discussion

Proposals on post-close motions etc.

Discuss. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 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. — Coren  00:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure our intelligent arbitrators will realise to put the section in as they need it :) Daniel (talk) 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 :) Anthøny 22:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

On the same topic: is Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Motions, currently linked at the bottom of {{ArbComOpenTasks}}, now redundant to the arbitrator-placed sections on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions? 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 {{ArbComOpenTasks}} to point to /Clarifications and motions? Questions galore :) Daniel (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I liked the entire page the way it was three months ago.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 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. Daniel (talk) 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 :( Daniel (talk) 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. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Snap. :) Daniel (talk) 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.... Ryan Postlethwaite 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. Anthøny 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 templates talk page. I have already changed the current cases to reflect the correct spelling. Thank you for your time, MatthewYeager 02:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)