Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard/Archive 1

Contents 1 Clerk's initials on ArbComOpenTasks 2 New cases 3 Some questions on Voting/active status, and a suggestion 4 Opinion? 5 Apparently you have to watch me like a hawk

[edit] Clerk's initials on ArbComOpenTasks

My view of the clerk's initials is that for opened and closed cases, it should be the clerk who opens or closes it, in case the parties have questions about the open (where did my statement go?, etc.) or close (what does "probation" mean?, etc). It might be a good idea to have the opening clerk be the designated contact person for that case--i.e. watchlist the case pages, refactor botched evidence pages, respond to procedural queries on the talk pages, and so forth. We haven't specified this yet, though, and making it standard procedure might result in clerk burnout the next time we have a case like Seabhcan or Hkelkar (although often the best response is not to). Thoughts? Thatcher131 05:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That was my confusion with the edit I made (and hence the revert and await clarification). My non-clerk opinion is that the person who opened the case should be listed as the clerk even after it is closed, no matter who closed it. They have (or should have :P) been watching the case, and may possibly have a better knowledge to answer potential questions. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the opening clerk should be the designated contact for the case. However I feel that changing the initials after closing should be left to the discretion of the clerk performing it. If he feels comfortable enough to answer any queries that may come his way, I see no problem in it. The advantage in this is that it will be apparent which clerk actually performed the closure. However if the clerk isn't sure that he will be able to handle the queries, listing the original clerk will be prudent. But since coordination and communication between clerks is well established here, I don't think either option will pose any major problems. --Srikeit 06:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Assuming the close is mostly clerical, we can leave it the "clerk of the case" even of someone else closes it. However, if we are going to have an official "clerk of the case" we should make some provision for trading off; Eagle has four concurrent cases because he was available to open them. If that's too much to watch we should be able to trade off through coordination here. Thatcher131 06:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I just say, the only reason I haven't committed to offering my services in an opening/closing capacity as yet (ignoring the fact that they may be denied anyways) is because I don't want to have to deal with 3+ open cases at once and still train and clerk at RFCU. Of course, if there was a couple more added to the roster as clerks, I'm sure the kind of situation that occured earlier today - with a clerk only being assigned to an open case just hours before it was due to open - and the fact that there is basically two people running seven-eight cases (which is an extremely high volume by ArbCom standards, I must admit), would occur less.

Because of the procedural and non-subjective act that is closing a case, I think that Srikeit's idea has probably the most merit so far. If the closing clerk feels comfortable answering all the follow-ups, and knows the sort of questions that may be asked by reading it quickly, then I see no problem with them being allocated. If they have doubts, leave it to the clerk who has done it all along.

Further to Thatcher's last comment, I believe there should be a "clerk of the case", and in most situations they should be the one to close it, for continuity. However, in the situation that they can't be online for a while after it's due to close, co-ordination through this noticeboard could be done to have someone else close it. If the "clerk of the case" is merely absent due to timezones or a small wikibreak (one day), then I see no problem with them retaining the initials. If they're gone for a week after the close of the case, the Clerk who closes it should assume responsibility for dealing with any post-event questions.

Just my thoughts. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New cases

Is it just me or is there an unusual lack of cases to open and close? :D Cowman109^Talk 19:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Shhhhh. They'll hear you. Thatcher131 19:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems like everyone filed last month to beat the rush. :) Newyorkbrad 20:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some questions on Voting/active status, and a suggestion

It is my understanding that new arbs (like me), are presumed recused for all cases opened prior to January 1. However we may "unrecuse" ourselves by adding "voting" as I have done so here and Kirill Lokshin and FloNight have done here. And thus for example Blnguyen's explicit recusal here is unnecessary. Is that everyone else's understanding? What is the voting/active status of arbs whose terms ended January 1? Have all these considerations been correctly taken into account when calculating the number of "active" arbs and the corresponding "majority" required given on the Proposed decision pages? I think it might be helpful to actually list the "active" arbs for each case. By the way I think "voting" is a better term. My thanks to all the clerks for their excellent work. Paul August ☎ 20:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

All that should be on the proposed decision talk pages for the individual cases. If you want to add yourself to a case, make a note on talk:proposed decision, or just vote (we'll get the hint), and someone will fix the list and check the math. Listing voting and non-voting arbs on the talk page is something we could do routinely, although we haven't in the past (and in fact, I haven't adjusted yet for Dmcdevit's break). The general rule we follow when arbitrators become inactive and active is here. Thatcher131 20:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re "active" vs "voting"; most cases are closed with bare majorities, rather than wait for everyone to get on board. "voting" might raise expectations among the groundlings. Thatcher131 20:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Thatcher. Paul August ☎ 18:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion?

I would like to know what the clerks opinions are on this edit. Paul August ☎ 21:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

My non-clerk opinion is that people cannot pick and choose whether they are a party; if they're involved, and someone wants their behaviour arbitrated, and AC accepts it, then they're a party. Daniel.Bryant 21:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apparently you have to watch me like a hawk

See: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Mistake with regard to "Move of Józef Łukaszewicz" request. Paul August ☎ 21:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A simple case of edit conflicts not working when they should, no? Daniel Bryant 21:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what it looked like to me, too. Newyorkbrad 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes apparently so (but mathematicians never like to take things for granted, see User talk:Paul August#Joke time). Still watching me like a hawk is probably wise, you never know when dementia might set in. Paul August ☎ 22:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)