Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks

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

Noticeboard[edit]


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.

Long term projects[edit]

Discussion[edit]

Arbitration Clerks Seeking New Volunteers[edit]

The Arbitration Committee clerk team is currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors (adminship not needed) willing to serve as clerks. The responsibilities of clerks include opening and closing arbitration cases and motions; notifying parties of cases, decisions, and other committee actions; maintaining the requests for Arbitration pages; 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 Wikipedia periodically, and, since they aren't arbitrators themselves, are rarely threatened with violence by the participants.

Past clerks have gone on to be (or already were) 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 fez!

Please email 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 we will get back to you with some questions. If you have any questions you'd like an answer to before applying please feel free to ask on the clerks noticeboard or any current clerk.

For the Arbitration Committee clerks, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Um, is there some reason you've put the "discuss this" text in this, the section that it links to? John Carter (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Removed. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The reason for initially commenting was, basically, I myself kinda doubt that I would be a reasonable candidate, and, honestly, I think I probably mouth off too often around arbitration cases to be much use, but I wouldn't mind trying to do some work in the area if anyone thought it would help, maybe as a kind of "reservist". John Carter (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi John, if you'd like to apply please send an email to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org so we can keep all the applications in one place. Thanks, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 03:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I did sent in an e-mail on 10th Feb and got a reply from bounces which means that it was sent successfully. But, I haven't received a reply yet, is it still stuck up for moderation or is it being considered. Since, I haven't received a reply, I deduce that nothing has yet been decided. With thanks. --QEDKTC 15:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@Callanecc: Anyone there? --QEDKTC 09:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi QEDK could you please send it again? I'm having no luck finding it. Thanks, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey Callanecc, I've resent it. --QEDKTC 11:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, received this time. Give us a week or two to discuss. Regards, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the response! --QEDKTC 14:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

This is reporting as broken[edit]

On [| this page ] at the top, there's an error near the top that reads:

For this case there are active arbitrators, Expression error: Unexpected != operator so Expression error: Unexpected / operator support or oppose votes are a majority. Expression error: Unexpected mod operator

I already know it's the Casenav template at the top of the page, and I know it's acting up because it sees no arbs or clerks. It could be corrected by temporarily removing the header until it's ready to be filled in. I haven't touch it, per the note on the page, but just thought I'd bring it to your attention. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 16:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Note to clerks: if templates throwing errors at first because no arbs and/or clerks have been added yet, one easy workaround is to fill them in with at least one dummy user upon creation. In most cases User:Example will work just fine for this purpose. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Error in vote counting?[edit]

Why does Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 say "<11/0/0/0>" when DGG, Euryalus and AGK are on record as opposing it? I see that below that there was a motion, but the motion has 10 accept votes, not 11. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a direct copy and paste from the request page, just like statements we don't change what's written as it's kept as a 'historical record'. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah well, it doesn't affect me so I don't care one way or the other, but when there is a break in the arbcom workload you really ought to consider having a virtual sit down on your mailing list and discussing the fact that your copying and pasting puts all sorts of things on arbcom pages that simply are not true. Unwatching this page now. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Former clerks[edit]

Is there a reason why some former AC clerks names are in bold while others are not? At first I thought it indicated clerks who went on to serve on the arbitration committee but that doesn't seem to be the reason. Liz Read! Talk! 16:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be because the {{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/c}} template is being used, which allows timezone information to be stored. The rest are using {{user6b}}, which does not have a timezone parameter, and also does not render the usernames in bold. I don't believe the bold is intended to indicate any difference otherwise. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks like the template has been fixed. Thanks to NE Ent who did some cleaning up on AC pages. Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Stricken principle not stricken!?[edit]

I'm confused; this doesn't LOOK stricken to me, but this says it was stricken. WT??? ISTM this should definitely be stricken! Please make it so and/or explain why it isn't currently stricken.--Elvey(tc) 02:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Elvey: The motion was proposed but did not receive the required six supporting votes, and so was not enacted. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, 'L235. Then why does it say "stricken"? Should that title not be changed? It's not clear to me where you moved the discussion from.--Elvey(tc) 04:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@Elvey: The motion which did not pass says that the principle is to be stricken. At the request of the ArbCom, on 2 March 2015, I moved the discussion from WP:ARCA. Hope this is satisfactory. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 11:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggested format tweak[edit]

For future announcements of ArbCom decisions on AN/ANI, I think it might be better to make the "discuss this" link look like this:

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Thread title goes here

Instead of this:

Discuss this

Maybe 4 or 5 times, I've seen people start a discussion (admittedly seldom productive) at AN/ANI immediately under the "discuss this" link, and I've been told by two people that they thought it was a header, not a link to a discussion page. You might even consider using the same format on the AC Noticeboard itself, since I am guessing all three announcements use the same standard template somewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: You have a good point, I completly agree that there is (a lot of) confusion on where discussion is supposed to go; earlier today I had to comment at AN to say that discussion should happen at the noticeboard talk. However, I'm pretty sure there's a bot that recognizes the Discuss this links and replaces them with links to the archive, so I'm not sure how feasible it would be to implement. I'm going to look for that bot again; if I don't comment again within about 24 hours please ping me again. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
ping NE Ent 11:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Archival of this noticeboard[edit]

The text up top says:

Most comments here are not archived as they concern simple daily case administration and maintenance issues; rather they will be cleared by a Clerk when they become stale. (This Noticeboard often operates as more of a virtual whiteboard for co-ordination purposes than a formal discussion page.) Discussions of note, however, or of historical interest, are archived: see archives I and II.

However, there is an archive box in the top-right of the discussion areas with another set of archives, 1 through 7. I'm not sure whether these two sets of archives (those for WT:AC/C and those for WT:AC/CN) need to be connected somehow now that there is only one "clerk discussion place", but two points needs to be adressed:

  1. If we do archive discussions (which seems to be the case judging from Archive 7 in the archivebox), then the notice up top that "this isn't archived" needs to be updated to reflect practice
  2. There doesn't seem to be any automatic archival process, which isn't a problem, but discussions haven't been archived since October 2014, so manual clerking is clearly needed. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  21:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Done (removed the section) and done in /archive8. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
About the other two archives, I think since they exist they should still linked to from somewhere... Maybe add them to the archivebox? ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  13:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Done. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Mrinal Pandey and Carlisle Rodham officially banned?[edit]

Please see/comment here. Surely 'probable' socks of a banned user should be banned as well? --Elvey(tc) 16:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)