Template talk:ArbComOpenTasks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Adding to template[edit]

Before it's recent protection, I tried to add a section to this template to address Requests that have gone stale (not met the 4-vote threshold to open or reject). This version can be seen here. Since this template is a tool for communicating status of arbitrations, this seems like a natural extension of the template. There, unfortunately, is no way in the Arbitration policy to handle stale requests, so using this tool to communicate that need seems natural and desirable. I suppose the exact presentation of this information is not important, but I think it's valuable to have it here. -- Netoholic @ 15:32, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

Today the page was unprotected. I implemented a more expanded version of the change described above. It was again reverted, and the page re-protected, by User:Raul654. Still no discussion on this or any other Talk page, and no attempt to gather the opinions of other users on merit of this improvement. -- Netoholic @ 04:36, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

Leave this protected permanently. The arbitrators are all sysops and can edit it as they need without all this hassle from people who have decided that they know exactly what the arbcom ought to be doing. —No-One Jones (m) 05:37, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. →Raul654 05:50, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

The tradeoff, of course, is that nobody else can help keep this up-to-date. Whether that is worth the effort of wrangling with attempts to reinstate a format that was abandoned months ago is your choice. —No-One Jones (m) 07:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The previously "abandoned" version attempted to track changes as each vote changed - probably a bad way to go. But removing it also meant that long-standing requests are stagnant. Communication is never a bad thing. -- Netoholic @ 07:33, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
I think that this should not be protected; it is arcane (random vandals won't find it), obvious when someone changes it (so it won't be misleading), and, of course, easily revertable.
Also, Arbitrators are not de jure sysops, only de facto; what would we do were we to have a non-sysop member?
James F. (talk) 08:53, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I tried a new format for this, which was reverted my Mav. His comment was that he didn't want to have to type that every time, but I really think it be very easy. After all, you can just copy an old line, and then change the name of the sub-page on five links. The benefit is that each listing shows all the related pages. It will be helpful to see when a talk page is created and also make the "Whatlinkshere" function work much better. Consider reverting back, or at the very least try it for a few days. -- Netoholic @ 03:05, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

5 links would be needed instead of one or two. The way it is now is easier to maintain. --mav 04:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

/Workshop rather than /Evidence ?[edit]

Recently this template was edited to replace the /Evidence link with a /Workshop link [1].

However, this leaves no link to the /Evidence page from the RfAr page (and the Workshop page itself has no link to /Evidence either). -- Curps 15:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little confused on the use of the /Workshop page.

  • Is it for ArbCom use only or can any party edit it?
  • Is it meant to replace the /Evidence page or supplement it?
  • Should evidence be placed on both pages or just one?

I think the workshop is a good idea, I'd just like a little more info on how it should be used. Carbonite | Talk 15:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

We now have both Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/X and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/X/Workshop. And both are just blank templates; neither one reproduces the user comments from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration that were added during the voting to accept/reject process. Are we in the middle of a transition to a different way of handling the evidence-gathering phase? This needs to be cleared up. -- Curps 15:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Style changes[edit]

I made some minor style changes to the template. I indented the text for each header, then had each header get progressively darker for each stage of a case going through ArbCom (maybe that should be reversed, heh, sounds negative). Hopefully the indented text is OK even if the color changes aren't (something about text hugging a margin that closely just drives me nuts). Anyways, enjoy. —Locke Cole 09:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Recently closed - how recent?[edit]

How "recent" must a case be in order to be listed in the "recently closed" section? --TML1988 01:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Took the very words. Is this working to a rough number of days (2-3?), a certain number of most recent cases (1-2?), or some combination thereof? Personally I'd suggest leaving more/them longer, given the timescale of many cases, which tends to make their subsequent disappearance somewhat sudden-seeming. Say a week, as a rule of thumb. Alai 21:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I generally just remove one case from the list for every newly closed case. I'm sure other clerks do different things, however -- otherwise the number of cases there would be forever static. Johnleemk | Talk 21:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It varies a lot. For nearly two weeks this month there were no case closes, so the most recent closed case on the list at that time was really rather old. Now we're closing cases about one a day and so I'm happy just to list the most recent two cases. There is a link to the full list of closed cases in the "Recently closed" header. --Tony Sidaway 23:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Initials of editors?[edit]

Recently I went by the main WP:RfAr page and noticed that there had been a change made in this template recently, namely showing the initials of some editors involved in a case. What is that supposed to signify? Are these administrators or arbitrators that have commented on a case, or something like that? --Idont Havaname (Talk) 16:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Those are to indicate whos clerking.--Tznkai 17:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if there was something to indicate this on the template itself instead of having users trying to figure it out the hard way. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This template is too fat[edit]

Just a remark. On my 19" screen with full width this template takes way more than half of the width of the screen. I can imagine how it looks on smaller screens.

I would think for a template to show nicely left-justified it should not take more than 1/3 of screen with.

The way it is now it ruins the table of contents in the main WP:ArbCom page, forcing even relatively short lines from it to break into two to three pieces like this: 
Suggestion Update Update Pt. 
2.6.4 Statement 
by User:Tony Sidaway
2.6.5 Statement by 
User:Leyasu Gothic 
Music and Nu 
Metal (Banned By 
Admin Sceptre) Second 
Ban By Sceptre Gothic 
Metal Heavy 
Metal Music Admittance 
To Baiting Into 
Violating 1RR Userpage 
Threatening Admins 
Harrasment And 
Personal Attacks And 
Wikilawyering On 

Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it has more to do with your screen resolution than with your monitor size. At 1280*1024, I perceive no problem whatsoever. Also, this template is not included on WP:ARBCOM. Did you mean RfAr? Johnleemk | Talk 16:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant WP:RfArb, sorry. Now, this template has no limit in width I think, it expands as far as necessary to cover all lines in there without breaking them, is that right? Should its width be controlled though? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Perhaps a percentage would make sense (a pixel-specific width would make it too small for people like me). I'll see if I can come up with something. Johnleemk | Talk 18:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Argh, ugly! Johnleemk | Talk 18:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, either the TOC in WP:RfArb or this template look ugly, as they are forced to trade the same space. I agree with you, ugly TOC is easier to bear than the slimmed-down crammed ArbComOpenTasks template. Thanks for trying though. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Does the change I made look okay? (If it gets reverted, take a look at the history). —Locke Coletc 21:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks awesome to me, thanks! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Cool. =) Looks like it still has issues in IE 7 unfortunately. It looks like it's not respecting the white-space: nowrap in the table definition, but if you set nowrap on each individual table cell (except for the one I explicitly set to normal) it works fine. I bet it'd work if we had a CSS class for this (and take less code in the template). —Locke Coletc 22:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Alright, here's the solution for IE that saves having a ton of code in the template itself. The following code would need to be copied into MediaWiki:Common.css (putting it at the bottom should suffice):
.toccolours.arbcom TD {
  white-space: nowrap;

.toccolours.arbcom TD {
  vertical-align: top;
And this template would need to be updated to the code in User:Locke Cole/Template:ArbComOpenTasks.
If you'd like to see the effect yourself in IE/Firefox/whatever, simply copy the CSS code above into your userspace CSS override and look at User:Locke Cole/Template:ArbComOpenTasks (make sure to refresh/reload so your CSS file is updated). The only alternative I can think of to get this working with Internet Explorer is to put style="white-space: nowrap;" on every table cell defined.. and that gets ugly fast. Thoughts? —Locke Coletc 23:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I have been bold and added the "white-space:nowrap" directives and the template is now readable for me once again. My monitor is only a 15" LCD but I have to crank up the font-size to ridiculous levels to even get near to the effect that the original complainant describes. Maybe he could let us know what his settings are like to allow us to gauge whether this is likely to be a problem that other people will encounter? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, this is something that's edited (semi-)regularly so having all that code in there was something I was trying to avoid. =) Hence my suggestion of a CSS class that inherits from .toccolours. Then all we'd need is the single white-space: normal; to make the column with case names wrap as desired.
Also, you may want to modify Template:ArbComTaskEvidence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which is what is used to add new cases to this template (it's subst'd into this template). —Locke Coletc 13:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In resonse to Phil Boswell, I have a 19" monitor with a 1024x768 resolution, full screen, that's when the TOC was showing mangled as described above. No big deal to some extent, as arbcom pages are not encyclopedic, so it is less important how they look, but still. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've now been reverted for removing an element that forced this template to be wider than it needed to be except in pathological conditions (that is, browser window widths of 800px and font sizes above 14pt, from a brief fiddling with settings. This is ridiculous. We can't hang-string ourselves into such an unsuitable situation merely because people go out of their way to have difficult set-ups. :-)

I propose, err, not having a forced-width item. Thoughts?

James F. (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Not forcing the width implies that for long names either in {{ArbComOpenTasks}} or in the table of contents will mangle the table of contents as the two compete for the same space. But I seem to be the only one complaining, so I won't mind the template going back to unrestricted settings. But no, I am not going out of the way screwing my monitor so that things look bad. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I preferred the fixed width version as well. Besides, without the fixed width, you may as well remove the white-space: nowrap styling since the browser will use the largest size it can get away with. —Locke Coletc 20:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Well... exactly. Having a fixed-width template is ugly as hell. Anyway, case names are meant to be short for ease of use (we've often called cases "... & others" or "... et al." for this reason), partially to make this template more useful and less ugly (but also to avoid our poor fingers being hammered down into stumps. :-)).
James F. (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no opinion either way, as I'm not personally affected. I just reverted because we got consensus on the talk for the change. Now let's see if we'll get consensus to undo it. :p Johnleemk | Talk 20:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Consensus is in the eye of the beholder. I read this and saw a lot of uninformed commentry about how CSS can (but really, really shouldn't) be used. :-)
James F. (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


Could someone move this to "recently closed" for me please? I've done everything else, but I don't seem to be able to edit this template to correctly close the case. --Tony Sidaway 02:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"motion to close" template[edit]

I just tweaked {{Motion to close}} to reflect that motions live on the workshop, not on the proposed decision page; there might be other templates that want the same change, but I'm too lazy too look for them. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the workshop is where the parties can offer motions. Motions proposed by arbitrators for actual voting go on the top section of /proposed decision. The point of the link is not to call attention to the parties' proposals (indeed, look at the voluminous motions section in the Barrett v. Rosenthal case) but rather to call attention to that which needs to be voted on. Thatcher131 16:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
In that case, the "m" parameter is being used inappropriately on DB deletion wheel war. There's a reason I do these things, y'know. (I wouldn't have noticed otherwise.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. ST47 proposed the motion to speedily restore Freakofnuture's access on the workshop page. UninvitedCompany agreed, posted it to the proposed decision page, and voted on it [2]. The tag goes to the proposed decision page to indicate the need for further voting. (As it happens the motion was mostly ignored after being voted 2-2, and is now superceded by the voting in the main case, so maybe the motion note is not needed at all here, although it needs to stay in the template to indicate previously passed motions). Or am I not getting your point? Thatcher131 17:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. That's a proposed temporary injunction, not a motion or request by the parties, and me being a programmer, I didn't look past that one section pointed to by the link. It needs an "i" parameter, not an "m". No? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
A proposed injunction is labeled with a single "i" and links to the proposed decison page and the tag is in italics. An injunction that has passed (it only takes 4 net votes to pass a preliminary injunction) gets 2 "i's" which makes a bolded link to the passed injunction on the main case page (which is the case with Armenia--its a passed injunction). A proposed motion is labeled with one "m" which makes an italic font link to the proposed decision page where the motion is voted on; a passed motion would be labeled "mm" which makes a bold-faced link to the "Preliminary decisions" section of the main case page which is where the passed motion would be recorded. This first came up because originally (i.e. pre my term as clerk) the template could only indicate an injunction. In the Konstable case, there was a motion to close without a decision since he was already desysopped. Fred listed the case in voting but left it also listed in Evidence, since the parties were still workshopping the case in chief, and various helpful people kept taking it out of the evidence section, thinking it was a mistake to be listed twice. So Fred asked me to work out a way to signal a motion as well as an injunction. Thatcher131 19:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Thatcher. An injunction is an order that the parties to the case do or not do something (for example, the injunction adopted the other day in the Armenia-Azerbaijan case putting the parties on revert parole while the case is pending). In this case, the motion was to resysop an editor, which I suppose requires a bureaucrat to do something, but doesn't require the parties to do anything, so isn't an injunction in a technical sense. It gets listed under "temporary injunctions" on the case pages because the templates don't have anywhere else to put it, but it's not really an injunction, so the distinction being drawn is a valid one, though hardly indispensible. By the way, I also was thinking of taking the "motion" out of the template in this particular case because it's obviously is not going to be acted on one way or the other. Newyorkbrad 19:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've sussed it now. The problem is that the Freak motion in Brandt wheel war was listed as an injunction on /Proposed decision. I think this is because there was no predefined place for it in the case template. (see how the motions are listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Konstable/Proposed decision). So I've moved the motion in the Brandt case and also updated the master template. Thatcher131 19:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
How many clerks and arbitrators does it take to screw in a light bulb? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Fewer than it takes to instal Vista. Thatcher131 05:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
We don't, yet. So far it has never happened. Motions are relatively rare, and the kinds of things that are moved (suspension during mediation, for example) are rarely compatible with the kinds of injunctions that are presented (imposing revert parole during consideration). Thatcher131 11:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Identification of phases[edit]

Since my edit was reverted w/o a rationale. I propose such a change to the template to better identify the phases. -- Cat chi? 15:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable sort of edit for an WP:AC/C#Current Clerks to make. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I've went ahead and implemented this change: as stated in my edit summary, White Cat's initial edit accurately reflects what actually happens in Arbitration cases at the present time, and the Open Tasks template should be modified to reflect that. Thanks for the suggestion, White Cat, and the input, Jack. Regards, AGK 18:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Unauthorised changes[edit]

Cross-posted from Template talk:RfarOpenTasks/Status#Note (permalink).

This is largely directed at Sumoeagle179 and Ms2ger, but Ncmvocalist may also wish to take on board what is said here.

Please retain the status quo for this template, and refrain from making changes without prior discussion and agreement. Moreover, please avoid revert-warring over semantic changes: that is, in addition to being disruptive, a grand waste of your time. Suggested changes are more than welcome, but please behave, eh?

Oh, and for the record, I prefer the current version over that being suggested by Sumoeagle and Ms2ger.

AGK 16:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Left a note on my talk page explaining edit prior to protection as that wasn't the intention - apologies in any case. Per my edit summaries, preferred old version myself. The change in border thickness and font size was very distracting, and the colour contrast in the old version seemed more appropriate. But again, that's just my opinion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't believe you have anything to apologise for, Ncmvocalist. I simply noted that you may be interested in my note because my stating that I believed you to be correct pertained to you, rather than because my caution against the changes pertained to you, if I make sense. AGK 23:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, makes sense. :) I'm not sure why Sumoeagle did not comment on any of these talk pages, even now. Anyway, in the mean time, unfortunately, I cannot update the RfarOpenTasks template while it is protected. Would it be okay to have it unprotected now? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
No offense to anyone involved, but I think these should be protected at least for another day or two. Hopefully those reviewing the code can be done by then too. RlevseTalk 03:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The code changes were better and the visual differences were minor, that is why I thought the changes should be kept. For now, the changes should be reviewed and the best features, old new or fresh ideas, should be merged into a new template set. The edit war was wrong but it's also wrong for Ncmvocalist to say arb approval was required, which made Ms2ger actually think it was required. On Template talk:RfarOpenTasks Ms2ger states his reasons for the changes and I agree with them. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Sumoeagle179, you seem to have a knack for repeatedly misstating what is being said. So I'll put it bluntly for your benefit: my actions were correct in stating that ArbCom approval (whether from arbitrators or clerks) was required for such changes. Your actions were simply unhelpful, as was the commentary you left on my talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I propose an end to this discussion and finger-pointing. As for the question of which version of the template is best, let's have a straw poll right here. Personally, I prefer the current version, although part of that may just be the virtues of familiarity. Thanks to everyone for your interest in the arbitration pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why this simple request to refrain from edit warring on Committee infrastructure descended into finger-pointing, but I digress.... Brad makes a good point. Some thoughts:

If it is of any assistance, I have amalgamated the two versions of the template. (I have not included the change to the border surrounding .wpc { display: none; } because it is not included as part of the template—it's padded by <noinclude> tags.) As for the colouring of the border: I prefer the current version to the proposed change, which I view as being unnecessarily intrusive and bringing no obvious benefit. I presume the colouring and width of the border was adjusted in this fashion in order to standardise the OpenTask boxes with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to and its brother; the two should be distinct, however, and the "how-to" boxes are deliberately conspicuous.

In the straw poll, therefore, I cast my vote for my own version (made just a moment ago), then the oldest version, and lastly the proposed amendment. AGK 21:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As for the changes proposed by Sumoeagle on the other pages:
Really, folks... Is all this necessary? The Wiki Way really should have worked in the first place. If only we hadn't resorted to edit warring. AGK 21:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I vote for AGK's version and will add a) Sumo didn't propose the changes, Ms2ger did, but eh, b) the coloring and width should be the same throughout the arbcom templates, ie, they should have the same look and feel. RlevseTalk 21:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with AGK and Rlevse. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


I've overhauled this template in its sandbox. What do people think? Is it an improvement on the old version? Happymelon 13:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is, but I'd also suggest getting rid of the "(t)" link on each line after the case name, as the talk page is already present in the first cluster of links. Kirill [pf] 13:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Good point. I've removed that. Happymelon 13:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to update the template tomorrow unless there are objections. Are there objections? :D Happymelon 15:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not an objection, a question. Can that thing be made collapsable?--Tznkai (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It's ok with me. RlevseTalk 23:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks great, and I second the question as to whether it can be collapsible? KnightLago (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup! Happymelon 08:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just made {{wpc/test}} that would simplify the clerk and drafting arbitrator lines. I.e.


would become


As multiple clerks will now be the default, this seems like a useful simplification. It will still work if only one clerk's details are given. What do people think? [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 12:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The only people who are ever called in that template are Arbs and Clerks, of whom there are limited numbers. Why can't we just have a #switch statement and just pass the initials? Happymelon 12:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have the time to implement that, please feel free to do so. :-) Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've made {{wpc/digraph}}, which does the {{#switch:}}. I have put it into {{wpc/test}}, which would be called like {{wpc/test|MB|KL}}. Alternatively, it could be worked directly into {{ArbComOpenTasks/line}}. I have made a demonstration {{ArbComOpenTasks/line/test}}, which would be called:

  |name   = Macedonia 2
  |date   = 22 April 2009
  |clerk1 = Tip
  |clerk2 = KL
  |draft1 = RL
  |draft2 = 
  |status = evidence
  |extras = ii

I have tested this -- it works and seems the neatest solution. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 13:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That looks very nice, and is indeed the neatest solution, IMO. Happymelon 14:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Yup, agree with Happy-melon - it looks good. Thanks for your work Sam and HM on this. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. Looks clean. Nice work! hmwithτ 16:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
For some reason when I view the new template the two clerks are appearing stacked on top of each other. Like for Macedonia 2, the start of the little box surrounding my and Tips initials starts on top with Tip's initials, and then the & sign, then below that the box finishes with my initials. I am not sure if there is not enough space or what, but this repeats all the way down the page for each case and clerks. KnightLago (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. Sorry, a stray line-break crept in. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 19:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Yup, looks great. KnightLago (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
But one minor issue: I've apparently replaced you as the clerk on all of your cases! ;-) Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Kirill, what was your digraph before the overhaul? Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
"KL"; when the links were done manually, having the same initials for two people didn't seem like a big deal. You can change mine to "Ki" or whatever else you think appropriate. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
When I became a trainee not long ago I picked KL as my shorthand. Shortly thereafter the drafting arb section was added and someone used KL for Kirill as well. At the time, I just decided to leave it like that unless it became a problem. I am not sure if it has become a problem yet. The initials do link to the party they belong to. But if anyone feels it is a problem we can work it out. KnightLago (talk) 03:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
That's no longer true, though; now that everything is going through a switch statement, every occurrence of "KL" is linked to my name, even if it was previously linked to yours. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
You are indeed correct. Well, how do you want to handle this? I guess I can try and come up with new initials or are there other initials you like? Let me know. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
As I said above, please feel free to pick some other digraph for me. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Kirill, I completely missed that. Everything should be fixed now. Your initials are "Ki". KnightLago (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My initials[edit]

I see that I am now referred to in the template as "NY". Unless space considerations preclude, I've become really accustomed to "NYB". Any chance that can be changed back? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't be too hard to manage, I can take a look now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
There you go. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Drafting arbitrators and case clerks[edit]

Just thinking out loud here, but would it make sense for the line for each case to list the drafting arbitrator(s) first and the case clerk(s) second, rather than the other way around? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think historically it's been clerks first - maybe because if someone needs to have something changed/cleaned up quickly, it's the clerk they go for. Not sure though, and I have no preference. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Historically, it listed only the Clerks until just a couple of weeks ago (because the designation of drafting arbitrator did not exist yet). I still think the proposed flipping of the two columns would make more sense. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Concur. The people who write the decisions first; the humble administrative assistants shall bring up the rear. :-) AGK 20:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made this change and updated the line and interim line as appropriate. —Locke Coletc 07:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Column headings[edit]

Is it possible to add column headings above the list of clerks/arbitrators? It's rather difficult for an editor new to RFAR to parse the significance of listing "SK&MB" and "WZ" next to a case, beyond that these refer to editors. Skomorokh 17:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added column headings, but their descriptions could probably use work. I had intended to use the <acronym> tag to clarify what some of the headings meant, but apparently that particular tag has been disabled here. —Locke Coletc 18:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the quick response, Locke. The "Clerk" heading is very clear, but unless one goes looking around the /proposed decision and /workshop pages "Draft" might need some figuring out; it means that the arbitrator listed has written a draft for the final decision, is that right? Skomorokh 18:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it, it means the listed arbitrator is tasked with writing the proposed decision (this does not preclude other arbitrators from presenting their own proposals, but this arbitrator is effectively the "lead" on the case they're listed on). You'll note that cases without a proposed decision have a Draft arbitrator listed, so apparently who is tasked with this is decided in advance (or at least shortly after a case is accepted). Perhaps we could link "Draft" to some arbitration page which explains the role of the drafting arbitrator more clearly (and if such a page doesn't presently exist, perhaps it should)? —Locke Coletc 21:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Eventually, we'll want to link both terms to the sections in the arbitration guide which will explain them; but those don't really exist yet. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I've written a section in the Arbitration guide about "Drafting Arbitrators," and have linked the 'Drafter' text in the template's header to that section. AGK 20:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for your work on this, it's much clearer now.  Skomorokh  15:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


I've added a section area for clarifications and amendments, with links to each specific subpage to ease navigation. I also made a style change to this section. I'd considered trying different colors to help further differentiate this section from those preceding it, but nothing really looked good (IMO). Inverting it (which is what I've done here) looks acceptable to me, but I imagine there might be some concern with readability/legibility on certain displays. Comments welcome. —Locke Coletc 06:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No entry handling[edit]

I've created a template at Template:ArbComOpenTasks/none (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that will insert "none" when any of the sub-sections are empty. I've added it in such a way that it should be difficult to accidentally remove it during the normal course of work on updating this template. I've updated the sandbox with a demo of the template in action. It also seems to treat HTML comments as "empty", which is good since the arbcombot HTML comment is still there in the sandbox version. Now we just need a way to add confetti and streamers to the page when all the sections are empty. ;) —Locke Coletc 07:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Colour scheme[edit]

There's been a recent change to the colour scheme which looks somewhat out-of-place. Are there any suggestions for a colour scheme that doesn't use black (Kirill noted that black is a bit too much, which is fair enough) yet sticks to the rest of the template? AGK 14:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Above I explained my thinking for the different color scheme for Clarifications and Amendments. But basically it's to help make this navbox easier to read; if all the sections use the same color it all kind of runs together IMHO. I agree the "black was a bit much", but it was the only thing that didn't seem to overlap too much with the other sections. We can always play around with ideas at the sandbox if we want to tweak the whole thing. —Locke Coletc 16:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
There's actually been some discussion of rolling out a new color scheme for arbitration templates; the red-based scheme used at the moment is somewhat garish. If people want to play around with the colors and come up with something nicer-looking, that'd be great! :-) Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll see if I can come up with something, but I'm not too hopeful. :P —Locke Coletc 00:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I missed the 'black' — probably something in the history. The Magenta look is more than somewhat garish; RFAR is not a battleground. DYK that the color-name 'magenta' derives from the blood-soaked-ground at the Battle of Magenta. You'd be amazed at what one can do with shades of gray. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Shades of gray sounded interesting; probably should have used the sandbox, but implemented the change (or rather, my attempt at a change) directly. I think it looks a lot better, thoughts? —Locke Coletc 11:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I like the header part but the background color is too icky (sorry I can't think of a better word right now). RlevseTalk 11:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it the grayscale, or just that particular shade that doesn't agree with you? —Locke Coletc 12:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
A step in the right direction, me thinks. I'd say lose the reverse polarity such as in 'Requests for clarification', make things a little more consistent and possibly lose some of the interior boxes (at least dim them to something that nearly blends in with the larger-box background). Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Reverse polarity is gone, dimmed interior boxes, and tried a very soft shade of blue for the primary background (try to address Rlevse's comment). —Locke Coletc 12:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I like the new background. There're still some inconsistencies with the inset box background-colors and the trick with margin-top seem to be off a bit. (They're working to overlap with the other lines under rows; I've not looked too closely and don't want to EC w/anyone). Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
the margin-top: -1px is, I believe, supposed to keep the line separators from overlapping with the border lines, but in Firefox anyways it doesn't seem to work. Perhaps an IE7/8 trick? Unfortunately there's (seemingly) no way to tell the last entry in a section to not output the line beneath it. —Locke Coletc 13:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I just cut the inner boxes and the margin-top trickdiff — which were not playing-nice on any of the proper browsers. And I'm outta-here; UTC+8. G'Night, Jack Merridew 13:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to say I'm not a fan of the greyscale personally, but I more dislike the way it's now inconsistent with the other ArbCom templates: {{ArbCom navigation}}, etc. I think the random choice of black has led us off down a path that actually throws the baby out with the bathwater: what was wrong with the original pastel colours? Happymelon 12:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
If we find something agreeable we can update the other templates. I've also reintroduced some color, a soft blue for the primary background. —Locke Coletc 12:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Certainly things will end-up done on all such templates once folks like. I really didn't like the crimson; pastels in general are fine. I don't see a problem with doing this on live pages; they're just internal pages.
Mebbe try these (slate-blue):
  • background-color: #DFE7F4;
  • border-color: #4B5568;
or (pale yellow;)
  • background-color: #FFF7DB;
  • border-color: #FFC300;
Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll throw these in the sandbox template and post diff links here (or you can do so yourself, I have to step away for a minute). =) —Locke Coletc 13:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
slate blue in sandbox, pale yellow in sandbox. Though I like how our work-in-progress looks so far. =) I'll confess to missing the boxen for each section, but I'll defer to others judgment on that. —Locke Coletc 03:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I see the inner boxes as too “busy” — they draw attention away from the actual tasks that folks are, presumably, reviewing; they also interacted poorly with the other lines under rows. A slight foreground color on the subheads in the former-boxes could work well, but let’s avoid problematic ones such as orange. Whatever talk has been going on re a new colour-scheme will drive the colours used; these templates and pages are the AC’s property and they get the final say. The slate-blue could work; the yellow I like less. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The pale yellow could work. I just don't like grey :D Happymelon 08:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I just took the pale-yellow live; if kept, the digraph boxes should get more harmonious colors. I don't want to mess with things too deeply as experiments. Hell, I may have been reverted while I write this ;) As you, I'm sure know, these should be in a style sheet instead of snotting up the implementation code. Any such 'skin' rules would need wide applicability and we would certainly want to avoid a proliferation of such things. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I've gone further. There are now five shades of yellow in use and I've gone with a paler background. The idea here is a palette of related shades that work well together because of their kinship. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks nice, but it needs a stronger outer border and fainter inner breaks. My WebDev toolbar tells me they're not the same yellow, but that doesn't mean much when they can't be told apart visually... Happymelon 10:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll fiddle with it further. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I've made a few tweaks. I got a little off-track trying to make the digraph boxes fill the available cell. It occurred to me to cut them, too, but am not going there today. Feel-free to dip an oar in there; it's your pond. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, the half-dead disgusting yellowish color is the improvement? Ugh. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan either, for what it's worth. The blue color we were working with seemed better. The original pink/red color was downright nasty though. —Locke Coletc 16:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
What about purple? Colors shamelessly stolen from the Main Page. The yellow lines would obviously be changed to a dark purple.
On a side note, I changed the column layout as it has never made sense to me. That may still need some work. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it me, or has the template changed color every day for the past week? Certainly every time I looked at it.--Tznkai (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
At least. I can't say I have a problem with that, it's not like it's a particularly high-vis template. Happymelon 22:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, you want random colors based on the day of week? That should be doable.... ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, Kirill said that there was talk of a new colour scheme, but I've not been a party to it ;) I did say I liked the yellow less than the slate blue (or grayscale), and I like the purple linked to in the sandbox (see my user page colours). Whatever colours get used, I feel that they should be related hues so that they work well together I like the column change and tweaked the subheads to sit over the right cells (I view the 'Inj.' and other extras as different.) I don't see any harm in working on the live version; the sandbox is still using the line-pair and thus is not fully boxed. Besides, playing on an internally-high-profile page attracts more comment and foster collaboration. Random colors might be a wee-much; I do this for the quote at the foot of my userpage, but here that would map to random findings and decisions — which we should not do in code, rather we should leave it to discretion. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I've tried toc-colours; the digraph boxes came out quite pale, which is fine with me — do we even care to outline these? Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I prefer the outlines/boxes. Kirill didn't mention anything being wrong with this template aside from the color scheme, so the column changes and such may be a bit much. I'd advise against further major changes unless the style requires it. —Locke Coletc 13:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no problems with the changes you guys are making, FWIW; so long as all the information is still there, you should feel free to change the layout if you think it improves the appearance. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I missed this; I just pinged John for input. Ma’af.
@Locke; I think the boxes are a bit much and the take space on-screen and clutter the code. The ones still there around the digraphs are very subdued, so I don't mind them much. The ones that were around the subheads were rather in-your-face and drew the eye away from the actual content that folks are presumably seeking. This thing is pulled into a lot of pages; AC:User/talk pages, AC-space stalker’s pages; anyone interested. And all these pages have color-schemes and may not offer a lot of screen real estate for it. 1024×768 is still a very common screen size. Anyway, these are reasons why I’m pushing for a more compact and blander style here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Selective listing[edit]

Currently there are four requests for amendment listed at WP:A/R (fringe science, Ayn Rand, Ireland article names and The Troubles), but only two listed on this template (Ireland article names and The Troubles). Is there a reason for this or are editors just slacking in updating the template?  Skomorokh  09:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Slacking in updating the template I believe. :P —Locke Coletc 13:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Disgraceful, someone ought to be fined a week's wages.  Skomorokh  13:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I've pinged the mailing list for more help, I think it is because several of the clerks are running into the end of school year transition of finals, moving home, summer jobs, etc. Also, we are acclimating several new clerks to the system. We should have more responses on this page in a few days. MBisanz talk 13:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


Could we put a little more space between the Pages (e.g. "(w/ t)") and Dates (e.g. "May 11, 2009") columns? For me, on Firefox, they are right on top of one another.  Skomorokh  11:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In my copy of Firefox, 3.0.10 running on Vista/x64, I don't see this. I do think the old order, pages then case name, looked better though, and that might resolve your issue with them being so close. —Locke Coletc 12:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm running 3.0.10 on OS X. I'm a neophyte when it comes to coding, but it looks to me that the Date line ("<td>Date</td>") is the only one without any padding set.  Skomorokh  12:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I've uploaded a screenshot of how it appears to me, does this look at all how it looks to you? If not, maybe upload a screenshot (feel free to overwrite mine). It may be best to simply remove all the padding tweaks if they're causing problems. —Locke Coletc 13:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I expect this is now showing due to the column swap that recently occurred, and I see a fix (I think). I'll tweak the subtemplates in a bit. fyi, it is only showing at lower resolutions (i.e. the width: 45%;). Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
fixed: [3] && [4]. This adds .5em padding on the right of the block of bitty-links which should keep it away from the date column. At smaller sizes, they touched; at larger sized the table cells are larger due to the 45%. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Aha, that seems to have done it. Thanks very much to you both for your timely and helpful replies. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  13:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. fyi, you should take your other issue about missing stuff to WP:AC/CN and get a clerk on it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Just done, thanks for the suggestion.  Skomorokh  13:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Dates - clarification needed[edit]

I presume that date means date the case was opened? I have no clue what could be meant by target date. This should be clarified in the template. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Recently" closed[edit]

By what definition of recent? None of the cases shown there are have been recently closed imo - all are almost a month stale... –xenotalk 21:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Now Fixed I see this was discussed a long time ago at Template talk:ArbComOpenTasks#Recently closed - how recent?. FWIW I don't think there's any need to show the "last few cases" - I think they should be removed after 2 weeks, or a month - even if it means "recently closed" is empty. –xenotalk 16:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Is the 18th of April really still recent? Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I think there is some use in knowing which cases were closed last (without being required to trudge through all of the completed requests to date or within the year), so I disagree with xeno on leaving it empty. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
If so then I think the section should be "Recent decisions" or "Last N Completed cases" or something like that (where N is probably 2, 3 or 5), and it should definitely contain a link to the archives. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that "Recent decisions" seems to work better, given the purpose of that section. I think this is a good suggestion. Technically, it already contains a link to the archives (in the words "see all"), but people miss that easily, myself included. That link may be better placed in the N+1 section (so if 2 or 3 recent cases are being listed, then the link to the archives would appear in the 4th or 5th link respectively). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Amendment/clarification links[edit]

Can the sub-templates for amendment and clarification entries be changed in such a way that the first, bolded, main entry on the left has a link not to the original case, but directly to the section on the amendment/clarification page? The first bolded link ought to be the main navigation link, and it ought to lead you to where the current action is. I always, always click on it first, expecting it to take me there, and I always, always end up disoriented when I find myself on some years-old case page instead. Fut.Perf. 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

parserFunction to automatically flag a particular section as "Pending update"[edit]

This edit will automatically changed the "(Currently none)" to "(Pending update)" when there is a case filed needing to be added to the OpenTasks template. Is this useful? If so, please apply to the remaining sections. If not, feel free to revert. –xenotalk 15:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Russavia-Biophys wrongly categorised[edit]

The current request for amendment relating to the Russavia-Biophys has been added to the template in the requests for clarification section. I'd fix this myself, but I'm not sure if this template is only supposed to be edited by arbitrators and clerks or whether any admin can do it - an explicit statement somewhere obvious would be appreciated! Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. In general, I would have no problem with non-clerks/arbs editing the template so long as they know for sure that what they are doing is right. NW (Talk) 22:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
After reading this, I went ahead and boldly moved the tree shaping case down a category, I hope that's acceptable. I believe I had the format correct, but please let me know if I made an error.--Noren (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I checked over your edit, it appears fine. If you're ever not sure, always feel free to give us a ping on WT:AC/C. Best, NW (Talk) 18:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)