Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks

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


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]


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 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 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)
@Floquenbeam: Goodness, I've forgotten to respond to this for a long time. Anomie, how feasable would it be to change the bot to recognize the format above? If it's possible to program, I'll bring it up on the clerks mailing list. Thanks! --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Easy to do, just let me know when the format is final. We'd probably want the bot to change "Discuss this at:" to "Archived discussion:" or I wouldn't have to do anything, since it will already update a link like that. Anomie 10:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@L235: I'd forgotten too. No worries, it was just an idea, I don't have any emotional investment in the outcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: I've left a note at clerks-l about this, and without objection from an arb or clerk will change the documentation and let Anomie know. Uninteresting side note, we actually don't have a "standard template" for this stuff, at least not in the sense of a Mediawiki template; instead, we have a bunch of documentation at WP:AC/CP, which makes it easier for not-super-technical clerks to update, and we literally copy-paste when we cross-post to the different noticeboards. But that's probably just jibber jabber to you :) Cheers, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a great suggestion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Anomie: Can you change the format to the following:
: Discuss this at: '''[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Thread title]]'''
turns into:
: Archived discussion at: '''[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive number#Thread title'''
Thanks. For the clerks --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
That should do it. Please keep an eye on it and let me know if it doesn't do it right once one of these new-format links is archived. Anomie 00:35, 27 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)

WP:CUOS2015 comments page[edit]

Good moooorning, clerks! I don't know what standard procedure is for pages like the comments/Q&A pages for the CU-OS 2015 appointments, but the process seems "over" (appointments done on March 31st?) so it seems logical to me that the pages should no longer receive comments. Someone just added a new comment today, which brought it to my attention. I dunno if it should be wrapped in some sort of "closed discussion" template, flagged with an editnotice, or protected outright, so I'll let you clerks determine what the best solution is. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  14:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. I don't see the comment. Can you provide a diff? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I did intend to! Here's the diff, it has already been reverted by Kraxler. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  16:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I've boxed the page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
You might want to do the same with the OS subpage then, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2015 CUOS appointments/OS. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  16:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Temporary injunction at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Proposed decision[edit]

Clerks: there is a passing temporary injunction that is overdue for enactment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Proposed decision. Could a non-recused clerk enact it? It's not clearly documented in the procedures, because temporary injunctions are rather rare, but I believe the proper way to enact it is to place :'''Enacted, ~~~~''' above the support votes, notify OccultZone on their talk page, and post an announcement to ACN and AN. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, if I were the one doing the enactment, I would personally use the following for the notices. Use or not as you see fit; just want to make this happen soon, as it's overdue:
== Temporary injunction regarding open [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_others|''OccultZone and others'']] arbitration case ==
The Arbitration Committee has passed the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_others|''OccultZone and others'']] arbitration case:
{{Ivmbox|1=OccultZone is prohibited from personally approaching any user in relation to any matter raised in this case via Wikipedia email, IRC, on their user talk pages, or any other off-wiki method without obtaining the express permission of the Committee on-wiki. This restriction will expire after the case has been closed.}}
For the Arbitration Committee, ~~~~
: Discuss this at: '''[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Temporary injunction regarding open OccultZone and others arbitration case]]'''
Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Caesar's wife[edit]

Wouldn't it be a good idea for ArbCom clerks to refrain from AE blocks in the future? Similar to the way Arbs generally don't get involved? *I* know what discussions on the clerks mailing list usually look like, but 99% of other editors don't. An AE block by a clerk is taping a giant "kick me" sign on the back of all the other clerks and arbs. In almost all other areas, clerks are supposed to be like Caeser's wife, I think I'd add this to the list of "for appearance sake, if nothing else" limitations. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it would make a difference, if it wasn't that they are a clerk, it'd be that they are a functionary (which has already been used, though not in this case, yet anyway). Is making AE blocks really that different from commenting in ArbCom policy/procedural reviews (such as the discretionary sanctions review, which quite a few of us did)? I'd probably argue that it's not as 'bad' (and no one had a problem with clerk comments then, in fact a number of editors welcomed them) given that AE blocks can be appealed and reviewed in public whereas the extent of comments on the Arb's thinking can't be.
For the record I hadn't had any offwiki contact about it before either block. After the blocks one person who isn't an arb, a clerk or a functionary sent me an email to check in with me (how I was feeling after some of the comments which had been made), I don't think that they've commented on the blocks (though I haven't searched through their contribs, just haven't seen the username). Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 03:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
There must be something about User:Floquenbeam's comment that I'm not getting. What do those internal clerk discussions look like, that would make action by a clerk not advisable? Where does the 'kick me' sign come from? EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: I think Floq (correct me if I'm wrong) means that the discussions on the clerks-l are pretty much purely procedural (e.g. "can we archive x request"..."wait 24 hours then archive it") whereas the perception from some is that the clerks-l is where the arb's tell the clerks (their lackeys) to do the stuff they (arbs) don't want to (or couldn't be bothered doing) themselves. Hence the "kick me" sign is the opportunity for people creating the conspiracy that I blocked Eric cos the arbs told me to and didn't want to do it themselves. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I can confirm that nothing interesting ever happens on the clerks list. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Callanecc's interpretation is correct. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Changes to the arbitration clerk team[edit]

Original announcement

Cleanup on AP2 Proposed Decision talk page[edit]

Hi, the latest section ("Closing?") has become a threaded discussion. Can a clerk move EvergreenFir's statement to her section and "Beyond My Ken's" statement to their section and close the section? Otherwise it's going to degrade based on recent actions against Ubikwit. --DHeyward (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@L235:@Callanecc: Location is here.Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Proposed decision#Closing?. I'd IAR and do it myelf but I suspect they would revert it. Both non-arb editors have previous sections ("Beyond My Ken"'s section should probably be renamed to reflect his area. --DHeyward (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Dang, I meant to do this sooner. On it. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a veteran of ArbCases, but aren't threaded discussions fine on the PD talk page? That's certainly how it was in the last one I was involved in (OZ and others). ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  04:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@Salvidrim!: It depends on the case, how the clerks opened it, and how the drafters and the Committee as a whole want it, specific to the circumstances of each individual case. In AmPol2, the PD talk has sectioned discussion enforced. Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Gotcha, just noticed the template up top. Apparently others had missed it too. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  04:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe we should come up with an editnotice or something like that for the sectioned talk pages... L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Just slapping that header template into an editnotice would already be helpful, probably? ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  04:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
It's been done for the Wifione case (see [1]). You could set a pagenotice at AP2's PD-talk individually or make a groupnotice for all the case's talk pages. I think you need the admin bit to setup editnotices, so you could ask another clerk or Arb to set it up for (Callanecc did the Wifione one), or I could do it if you tell me what you prefer. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  05:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
We'd need to do it on a case by case basis (ie for individual PD talk pages) rather than for all of them as it's not going to happen all the time. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Yea, but with the code you used in the groupnotice, whhat's there only shows up for talkpages of the Wifione case (4 pages), so I assume a similar coding could be added to the groupnotice to only show up on the talkpages (all or some) of AP2. Of course, if it is really only needed for AP2's PD talk, then put it as a pagenotice only. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  13:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah very similar code in a groupnotice for PD talk pages but as the one editor per section rule isn't applied to all cases you need a list of exceptions there and the code would just get complicated and annoying. I'd just be easier to create a pagenotice for each PD talk page where the rule is going to be used. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Gotcha! Wanna do it? :p ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  01:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done and added to the clerks' procedures. You should consider joining the clerk team Salv, I reckon you'd be pretty good at it. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 02:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
... Probably, I guess? ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  03:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Flick me an email if you're interested. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 03:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Can't get enough of me at SPI, can you? :p I'll think about it. I'm hardly known for my dependability! ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  03:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for cleanup! (for the record, I have no preference but understand why it was done as well as pro/con for each style. I didn't feel comfortable responding "threaded" to a comment when it was clear that was not the desire of clerks or the committee. I originally missed the tag when the page opened a month ago and was corrected too, so that is how I knew it was being enforced and desired.) --DHeyward (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Close AP2?[edit]

@L235:@Callanecc: Unless i'm mistaken, I believe it's 24 hours since the 4th net support vote was cast and the case can mercifully be closed. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Proposed decision#Vote. --DHeyward (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It's standard practice to wait for word from the arbitrators that it's time to close a case. Checks and balances and all. Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems that would be the point of the 4th net support vote and the 24 hour waiting period. It shouldn't be a surprise and they all had the opportunity to oppose (indeed, one did). Same with simple majority. The only thing that may be confusing is 1st, 2nd choice voting but that's been hashed out for weeks and remedies haven't changed. Waiting on courtesy makes more sense but the checks and balances are laid out in the methodology adopted by the net+4 and 24 hours, or absolute majority. Prolonging it even more seems pointless and bureaucratic. --DHeyward (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone let arbitrators know it passed net+4 votes and past 24 hours? Seraphimblade voted to close it out on Sunday and clarified that they opposed the now 4-5 sanction even though it wasn't necessary. two other sanctions also don't have majorities but it's pretty clear they don't need to finish voting. It seems they all know what's passing and what the final ruling will be. --DHeyward (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@DHeyward: Yes, the arbitrators are aware. None has given the final sign-off for closing yet. Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@L235:@Callanecc: Please update that sanction 3.4 cannot pass. Yet now we have only net 3 arbs to close. I presume they are pondering the undated 2.2 Ubikwit topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Question About Case Filing Template[edit]

The case filing template is confusing. In particular, at the very top, it says to provide a neutral title after CASENAME= , but then immediately below, it says not to enter anything in the case header above. So do I put the case name after CASENAME= , or do I ignore that and specify the casename by the section heading? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The template says not to add anything in the section header; that is, do not enter anything in the "Subject/headline" box above the main box. Enter a neutral name after CASENAME=. Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I figured that out by previewing. I think that the template could use clarification. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I suppose the first comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/preload could be reworded from "DO NOT ENTER ANYTHING IN THE SECTION HEADER BOX ABOVE THIS" to something like "DO NOT ENTER ANYTHING IN THE "Subject/headline" TEXT BOX ABOVE THE MAIN EDITING AREA" to remove any shred of possible ambiguity.  · Salvidrim! ·  21:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved it up to the top so it makes more sense... Kharkiv07 (T) 21:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
...and after realizing I screwed up the code; I did it again with Salvidrim!'s wording. Kharkiv07 (T) 21:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Kharkiv07, FYI, clerks generally prefer that pages in Arbspace not be edited by non-clerks, which is why I suggested an edit instead of made it... although in this case I don't think there is much to object to so it will likely be fine, I just thought I'd mention it for the future. :)  · Salvidrim! ·  21:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Meh. This seems like (one of the few) appropriate applications of WP:IAR. Kharkiv07 (T) 21:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
That's fine; I've reinstated the edit as an uncontroversial clerk action without discussion on the clerks' list. @Liz and Penwhale: do you think this needs to be brought up on the clerks' list? L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you could mention it. I only saw that it was changed because you pinged me. Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
As far as clarification goes, what else about the template needs to be fixed/changed? (I'll work on it in my sandbox this time ;P) Kharkiv07 (T) 21:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't explain clearly explain how to add parties. Also, being told to use Userlinks and Adminlinks would, to my mind, be clearer than the admin = yes or no business, but that is just my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Please do not edit any arbitration-related pages, Kharkiv07, except for case requests or on open cases if you are a participant. It makes the arbitrators and clerks very cross. Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Is this an arbitration-related page? If so, the instructions shouldn't say that questions can be posed here. If not, and if you were only addressing Kharkiv07, is there a way for a non-clerk to make draft edits to arbitration stuff in a user subpage for the arbs and clerks to review? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
If the clerks want something changed I'll do it in my sandbox and then they can play with it. Kharkiv07 (T) 22:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Robert, I didn't mean noticeboards, I was referring to policy pages, templates and the like. I'm grateful that you brought the problem of a confusing case filing template to ArbCom's attention, I hope we can straighten this out.
Kharkiv07, if you want to edit these pages, you should just apply to be a clerk some day. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

A new way to format cases[edit]

Clerks: In response to the thread above this I believe that the case requests can be much more efficient in several ways, and to make this happen I think there's an easier way to set it up then is currently being done. The root of the problem is the current requests page, not only is it up there for all the world to see when somebody posts it without giving them a chance to review it, but when arbitrators accept a case you then move it anyway.

Currently, if I submitted a case entitled "Foo" it would become a section on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. Then after the committee accepts it, it would be moved to "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Foo" by one of you. I think a solution that would make life easier for everybody would be for them to file their complaint at "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Foo" in the first place, and then, when they're ready, they can transclude that page onto Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. This has three main advantages;

  1. Users can review the case before they transclude it
  2. It wouldn't have to be moved when opened
  3. It would make it much easier to create a much more manageable case request system, as you have far more options when creating a new page in its entirety than when you just create a section. If this were to be done, it wouldn't be hard for me (or anybody else) to make a much more user-friendly way to submit cases.

Please, tell me what you think. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Not immediately saying no, but this raises some problems not previously experienced, because actions regarding pages are more difficult than regarding sections:
When a case request is declined - which they often are - current practice is that it is blanked and a record kept at the index of declined requests, as well as linked to via permalink in notifications to all parties. Unless we keep all the declined case requests undeleted - which brings up its own (bigger) problems, this breaks continuity and the historical record. I don't know; you could come up with five more potential issues. Again, I'm not objecting, just there are a lot of considerations to be taken into account. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with keeping the requests on pages, it's still available just like a diff would be, just in page form. True it would break tradition, but sometimes you have to break tradition for a more effective system. That being said, I appreciate the feedback and of course it's whatever is easier for the clerks. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll echo L235's concerns; in addition, what the filer choose as the case title may not be where the case end up at, so having the request already on a subpage can show preferential treatments. Not to mention, the clerks still have to go through every page for updates when the case opens anyway. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 04:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)