Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee | Clerks

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arcticocean (talk | contribs) at 13:55, 13 December 2008 (→EditNotice: Concluding discussion. Thanks for the input, all.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Clerks' noticeboard (shortcut WP:AC/CN)

Clerks' Noticeboard

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Wikipediocracy-related conduct   21 October 2024 4/1/2
Marine 69-71   26 October 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently 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-l@lists.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 Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Requests.

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. Motions and requests for amendment (matters that are not a "full case") that ought to be closed can be discussed here also.
  • Motion to close has now been posted in Piotrus 2. I think we are a few days away from closing, but we need an implementation note posted to reflect what is passing or not (see comments on the motion to close by FloNight and me). Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus2 closure. We need a clerk to write an implementation note so we can review it to make sure we are all on the same page. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, edit conflict. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 16:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AGK and Penwhale seems to have this handled, right?--Tznkai (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although the assignment seems to have taken on a life of its own, which was not the intention. Thanks all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sheer number of proposals—and the two late-minute adjustments to the majority (that sort of thing really ought to be kept up to date at all times)—has made authoring the notes (and even figuring out what passes, never mind putting it into an easily-readable format) a bit of a Gordian task.
We seem to have it covered though, yes.
AGK 18:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.
I'll be going on a lengthy family vacation starting the 21st, so I'd prefer not to take any new cases until after I return. I will still be available to help out until then.--Tznkai (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.
For clarification and other requests:
  • Peter Damian II is active, but lengthy.
  • Alastair Haines is stale - arbiter attention required, we have a pair of motions, one of which could pass relatively quickly.
  • Matthew Hoffman is stale, only one motion (1.3) appears likely to pass. It has been nearly a month, any way we can get rid of this thing, if just getting abstention votes from the arbiters who have shown no interest?

--Tznkai (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a reminder on pending motions to the mailing list yesterday. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can the Clerks please begin enforcing the 500-word limit on WP:RFAR statements? Any excessively long statement should be removed, and a note left for the user inviting them to submit a shorter one. Thanks! Kirill (prof) 05:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing; I'll keep an eye out for excessively-lengthy statements.
A number of statements have already been placed into collapse boxes—rather than delisted—by Ncmvocalist. I'm not sure that's something a non-clerk should be doing, but that's a topic for a different discussion.
AGK 13:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 22 November, 2008, there are 12 active Arbitrators, and the majority is therefore 7 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Current members.

Active:

  1. Charles Matthews
  2. Deskana
  3. FayssalF
  4. FloNight
  5. Jdforrester (James F.)
  6. Jpgordon
  7. Kirill Lokshin
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven)
  9. Newyorkbrad
  10. Sam Blacketer
  11. Stephen Bain (formerly Thebainer)
  12. YellowMonkey (formerly Blnguyen)

Away or inactive:

  1. FT2

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).

General discussion

Murmurings about Missing Motions

One, possibly more, motions seem to have been closed but not added to the closed motions archive. For example, clarification of Tobias Conradi [1]. I'm sure there were others but could be wrong. Can someone check that none others have been missed, maybe go down RFAR history for times when page volume suddenly shrunk? Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked right before it was archived, onel 1, 3a, 4 passed. 2/2a did not pass. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AGK seems to have forgotten the listing step; poke him or fix? — Coren (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed forget (apologies about that!), but have remedied the matter further to an email poke from Coren (and thanks for that ;). I'm unsure if there are any other motions that have not been listed; has somebody checked? AGK 17:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That page scares me, so can someone list the Jack Merridew one there? Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appointments

On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to advise that we have appointed Nishkid64 and Ryan Postlethwaite as clerks. We appreciate their work and that of all the other Clerks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OOH RAH. I've updated the clerks page. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Muahahahaha! We've got you now!  :-) — Coren (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome aboard, Ryan and Nish. AGK 17:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology RFAR

Hi, threaded discussions are breaking out at the Scientology RFAR. Please address the issue before it gets out of hand. Thanks, DurovaCharge! 20:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be no out-of-place comments on the Scientology request for arbitration.
I would presume that this issue has been handled by another clerk.
Thanks for letting us know; feel free to ping again if we need to intervene again. AGK 19:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EditNotice

Resolved
 – Concluding discussion, and will go ahead and ping the Committee. Further input is still welcome! AGK 13:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is little in the way of guidance for editors using Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. An edit notice—text which appears when editing a page (there's one in use on my talk page, see here, by way of an example).

Should we look into having some basic advice appear when editing RfAr? For what it's worth, it could adjust the head levels of the page downwards at least a notch of two.

I've prepared an example at User:AGK/A. Thoughts and comments on this proposal—and that specific example—welcome from clerks, arbitrators, and lurking/observing editors.

AGK 20:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it.--Tznkai (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"; Response to [[User:Example|Example]] : Your response here. ~~~~" won't work because the : breaks down to a new line, unless that was intentional. Daniel (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, by placing a colon between the response and the header, the response is placed on a new line and indented. It just looks a little prettier. :) AGK 13:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has the Win Nature. — Coren (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard&oldid=257689068"