This Noticeboard's primary purpose is to facilitate co-ordination between members of the Clerk team, as well as communication on non-private matters between the Arbitration Committee itself, and its Clerks. The page may also be used by non-Clerks to attract the attention of the Clerks to a particular matter. 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 (ie., on this page), by composing an email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org; only the Clerk team and individual Arbitrators may read emails sent to that list.
A procedural reference for Clerks (and Arbitrators) is located here.
Conflict of interest
If a particular Clerk has a serious conflict of interest regarding the subject-matter of a case or one or more of the parties to it, that Clerk should recuse himself or herself from the case in favor of some other Clerk. In any event, no Clerk should be involved in a case as both a Clerk and participant. A Clerk who wishes to make a statement in a case or provide evidence must refrain from acting as a Clerk with respect to that case. (This does not prejudice his or her right to perform cosmetic refactoring of evidence and workshop pages, as is the right of any editor.) In unclear situations, the Arbitration Committee should be consulted.
Calculation of majority
In opening a case we have to determine the majority for the case. This number goes in a statement at the head of Proposed decision.
Check for recent updates to the active list at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Members, and check for Arbitrators who are recused from that case. A majority is half the number of active Arbitrators, rounded up to the nearest whole number, or plus one if the number of active Arbs is an even number. (For example, if there are 8 or 9 active Arbitrators, the majority will be 5.) Seek assistance on this page or on #wikipedia-en-arbcom-clerks with the arithmetic if necessary.
Updating the majority: The majority should be calculated when the case is opened, and updated when the case is listed for voting. After a case is opened for voting, do not update the number of active Arbitrators if an Arbitrator becomes active, as that Arbitrator may not feel capable of casting an informed vote. However, if the Arbitrator does cast a vote, then consider him or her active on the case and update the majority if necessary. If an Arbitrator goes on the inactive list during voting, recalculate the majority unless the Arbitrator has already voted. Similar procedures are followed when new Arbitrators are appointed to the Arbitration Committee.
Arbitrators who vote "abstain" on a given proposal are deducted from the number of available Arbitrators on that proposal (i.e., the same as if they were recused on that issue). Thus, the majority with respect to such a proposal may be different from the remaining proposals in the same case.
See below for the current listing of active and inactive Arbitrators for use in determining the majority.
I was one of the first draft of arbitration clerks and as part of my duties in 2006 I created a long-disused template which is taking a long time dying. I know how busy a clerk's Wikipedia life is, but I think it might be helpful to get the current clerks' opinions on this.
In 2006 my approach would have been to clean up our own mess: delete obsolete templates and clean up the references (by transclusion, annotation, etc) and move on. In the unlikely event such an ethic persists, let some kind clerk please just do it. --TS 20:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Broken links at evidence phase of "Christianity and Sexuality" case
The final decision of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific needs a bit of clean up. In particular: the placeholder sections labelled "Template" need to be removed, and the sections headers "Principles", "Findings of fact", "Remedies", and "Enforcement" are all unnecessarily repeated a second time. Additionally, the "Implementation notes" and vote on the motion to close are usually not repeated on the main case page, since they are on the /Proposed decision subpage, so they should be removed too. Mz7 (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)