Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Stuff we're involved in

[edit] Snowspinner

Since I've been on the job for two weeks already, here's what I've already done.

I'll also take the VV appeal - it's high profile, and two sets of eyes would benefit it. Phil Sandifer 23:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Have done this. User:Snowspinner/Clerk/VeryVerily Phil Sandifer 20:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll take KDRGibby and Dyslexic Agnostic (God help me). Phil Sandifer 06:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've taken Tommstein. Phil Sandifer 17:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tznkai

I'm recused from KDRGibby, as I am presenting evidence. I'll be tackling evidence and propsed decisions in VeryVerily, and I'll pick up whatever else is dropped (except Rajput, I think thats better left to someone a bit more experianced.)--Tznkai 02:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Taking Tommistein and Leyasu. I'd like it if someone else took ruy lopez to avoid any possible bias from working on Apeal of VeryVerily--Tznkai 07:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

dropping leyasu, picking up instantnood 3
Real life obligations came up, couldn't get away. I'll be back between this friday and the coming monday, sorry about that.--Tznkai 17:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Things got worse, not better. Many apologies, but I have serious family and personal obligations to take care of. It may be another week.--Tznkai 19:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway

19:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Presently not available to perform clerk work.

[edit] Ryan Delaney

A bit overcome with schoolwork lately. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing cosmetic work on various cases, but not any opens/closes. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnleemk

I will handle whatever I feel like tackling, subject to time constraints and my own interest. I have been adding bits and pieces to the Leyasu, Boothy, KDRGibby, VeryVerily appeal and Web Ex cases. I prefer working in the workshop, but I've added and summarised evidence in some cases (most infamously in the pedo userbox case). Johnleemk | Talk 10:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking into the Shiloh case, but it's rather messy, and since I might not have the time, I'm reluctant to officially clerk for it yet. Johnleemk | Talk 09:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I've taken the Tony Sidaway case -- I completed the opening, so I might as well see it through. Johnleemk | Talk 18:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New templates for case opening

If you follow the procedure to create cases, it's a pain because when it comes to the evidence, workshop and proposed decision pages you have to edit the links to replace "name of case" with the name of the case.

I've created three new templates:

Just create your main page and then click on the relevant links (as it says in thep clerks procedure page in the section on opening cases) then call them like so from inside the new, empty, evidence, workshop or proposed decision page.

{{subst:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Make new workshop page|My new case}}

Don't forget the subst, or it won't work.

You still have to edit the new proposed decision page to enter the number of active arbitrators and calculate the consequent quote for a majority. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Briefs?

I've been floating this idea around, but I'd like to get some serious discussion going if any is necessary. In cases where users have submitted lots of confusing information, not enough information, the wrong kind of information (etc), would it be useful/proper for the clerk handling the case to write up a "brief" in a third location that summarizes and perhaps analyzes the evidence? For example, a clerk may write something like:

"Petitioner asserts that the user was engaged in a pattern of NPOV editing on article X (include some diffs from evidence page). The petitioner provides little or no evidence of failed attempts at dispute resolution, suggesting that this RFAR may only be a high-energy content dispute."

My main concern is the degree to which clerks should be doing analysis of evidence, or whether we should be doing nothing but distilling the information. Some RFARs are so confusing badly written that I think we could help by doing this, but I want to balance that against concerns that we should not be doing analysis, as that is the arb's job. --Ryan Delaney talk 13:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think such comments are appropriate - I've made them in the evidence summaries I did. Remember, we're also supposed to write proposed decisions. Phil Sandifer 17:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obtaining handling and presenting evidence--what are the ground rules for clerks?

As clerks, how hands-on should we be? I don't think this has a simple answer. For instance in one case someone refers to an RfC by name, saying it's important, but doesn't link to it or explain why it's important. Should I go and investigate? This has been pointed out as evidence and no doubt the Committee will want to look at it. So at what point in going off and doing this do I become a participant?

In an early case I was involved in, Party 1 presented a jumble of diffs and a mass of polemic, attacking the defendants, who were it must be admitted very nasty pieces of work and had made his experience of Wikipedia a living hell. It was obvious that the case would fail unless the sequence of events and the identity of the participants could be understood. I spent a weekend painstakingly sifting through the history of a number of different articles, through several different disputes, piecing the whole thing together into a coherent body of evidence that could be digested easily. Is also this part of the clerk's job?

I think we need guidance on this from the arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In general, my inclination is no, it's the AMA's job, but they're in dire shape and not really doing their job, nor have they ever. And certainly there's some amount of following-up to do - the RfC, posting checkuser requests on cases that require it, and glancing at the context of edits to make sure they're being represented fairly. (i.e. if a user is accused of making a personal attack, making sure they didn't follow up by reverting themselves a minute later with an edit summary of "I'm sorry, that was totally inappropriate of me, and I shouldn't have said that.") Phil Sandifer 17:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Personally I think our job is to check out the claims as we go, not to search for conflicting evidence, but its hard to say where the line is. My guess is we're going to be left using our best judgement. I think I'm going to go with evidence summaries including true false claims onto the /evidence pages and then send a short breif via the ML.--Tznkai 17:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I hate to repeat myself, but I think the idea of doing briefs has every upside and no downside, because we would be very hands-on at organizing information, but the original statement from the party would still be visible in its original form. I would like to see a standard format for doing this, either on a different sub-page or as a separate section of the same page. --Ryan Delaney talk 17:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well we could raise briefs with the committee but I don't know whether they'd wear them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New arbitrators unrecusing from older cases

I've had one case of an arbitrator (Charles Matthews) who has voted in an older case from which he had been auto-recused. He's allowed to do this of course, it's up to him, but in some cases this may affect the calculation of the number required for majority acceptance of a proposal. I've asked Charles to raise this and discuss it with the other arbitrators on their list, so they can agree on how to proceed. In the meantime, please be careful during closing and raise specific queries to the arbitrators before publishing the final decision. --Tony Sidaway 15:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Timeline in userbox case and SPUI

Some people have been updating the timeline in the evidence of the userbox case. Thanks. I recused myself from this case recently after deleting SPUI's userpage and protecting it from deletion. I'd appreciate it if someone could update the timeline with some basic details of this affair and the edit war that developed over SPUI's userpage--it's particularly important to get this right because a userpage has been deleted and that isn't a step that is taken lightly. My brief note about the deletion and request for review is on WP:AN. --Tony Sidaway 11:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The summary for the userbox case

In leaving, User:Radiant! singled out the clerks' office's summary of trhe userbox case for criticism, but gave nothing specific. Steve Block has offered this elaboration of some apparent discrepancies in the account. This seems to be valid criticism to me, but I'm recused in this case. Would someone please take a look and correct any errors or slanted wording in the account? --Tony Sidaway 20:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox closure--it's important to get our ducks in a row

On the userbox decision, there are some potential ambiguities and they need to be tightened up. I won't be doing the close myself because I'm recused, but somebody will need for to work this out.

For example, Ashibaka is first to remain desysopped for two weeks after the case closes, "after which his sysop powers are to be restored" (5), but in a later motion he "may reapply for administrative privileges" after two weeks (5.1). There are mutually incompatible motions, and both passed (the former by 13 votes to 0, the latter by 9 votes to 0, with three abstentions). 8 votes is a pass in this case. Which is to be applied?

In Carnildo's case, a similar sequence occurs. Both motions passed but the latter is more stringent and passed by a smaller margin (a third motion in his case failed).

The El_C and Karmafist cases are relatively straightforward. Only one of the motions proposed has passed in each of those cases, and this is the one that should be applied. --Tony Sidaway 12:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the arbitrators have specified which motions they prefer as a first choice. --Ryan Delaney talk 12:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
If I'm reading the procedure for closing correctly, the motion with the most net votes applies in case of a discrepancy. Although maybe I'm just reading too much into it. Johnleemk | Talk 12:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's not do it unless explicitly asked to do it by the arbitrators

Because this is a very controversial case and it's moved unusually quickly, the Committee is considering having an arbitrator perform the close--someone who has been party to the discussions on the mailing list and has a sense of the feel of the committee on this. I agree, and suggest that we hold off unless explicitly requested to perform the close ourselves. --Tony Sidaway 13:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry of Ruy Lopez

The Ruy Lopez case was closed and merged into the VeryVerily appeal. From what I can tell, everyone and his mother believe that Ruy Lopez has used a bunch of sockpuppets, but I haven't been able to find much documentation to this effect. (the one example I did find is cited in FOF1). Help would be appreciated Raul654 18:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've looked and dug into the available evidence, but there's nothing "hard" indicating sockpuppetry. Most evidence that is available is circumstantial. Johnleemk | Talk 01:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll take the circumstantial too - David has already confirmed at least one of hte sockpuppets. Raul654 02:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I did what I could. I guess I'll now go and open some cases. If there are any to open... Johnleemk | Talk 09:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping the checkuser page clean

Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser is a mess. Many requests have been answered, others have not. Could someone go through and delete any of them that have been answered more than 24 hours ago? Raul654 23:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Poke - again, could somebody take a look at this? Raul654 23:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I archived until about 2/3rds down the page. Johnleemk | Talk 09:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I did everything. I find it a bit troubling that a lot of stuff from January was put in the March archive even though the requests were never rejected nor resolved. Johnleemk | Talk 14:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] -Ril- 2

I think it would be a general help if a clerk could merge all the relevant Ril-related material from KJV to the new case. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 05:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desysopping

Prior discussion on Seabchan mooted by events. When it is again near closure, we can Rochambeau for it. Thatcher131 23:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The closes are coming in again, and the net vote count for closes appears to be hovering at 3 with 5 support and 2 oppose, so it will soon need to be closed (should definitely be given at least 24 hours after the 4th net, though, as this is clearly a controversial case). Is Srikeit still up for it? Cowman109Talk 00:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes I'm still interested but I'll give this one well over 24 hours after the 4th net vote considering that a remedy has recently been proposed by Fred and is still to receive any votes. --Srikeit 16:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
It may be a challenge to interpret the conditional votes, if things move in the direction they have started. [1] After the 4th net close vote double-check the implementation and leave a note; during the 24hr grace at least one other of us should double-check it. Thatcher131 04:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The net-vote to close is now 5, so the results should start being evaluated. Lots of conditional votes to look at as stated above... Cowman109Talk 16:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
But nothing passes except the orignals. Thatcher131 16:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Srikeit, do you have an account on meta? We need to post the desysoppings at m:Requests for permissions when the case is officially closed. Thatcher131 18:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes m:User:Srikeit, however its already been done. Do I still need to post anything? I'm thinking of closing it around 17:00 (UTC) today. --Srikeit 06:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here guys, but just wanted to point out that requests to desysop users are traditionally not done by the clerks, but by an Arbitrator. The present case is moot because Dmcdevit has already requested the desysopping, but it might be worthwhile to ask for a clarification from the Arbs, as I don't believe a clerk has ever been called on to make such a request, and the stewards might be a bit hesitant, especially those not active on en.wiki. Essjay (Talk) 07:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Well seeing that everything is final, I'm closing the case now (my first as an official clerk!). Thanks to everyone especially Dmcdevit, FloNight and Thatcher131 for all their help and guidance. --Srikeit 07:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflicted) We've never tried with anyone but an arbitrator, so I can't speak for the stewards, but I would say that it's probably best that way, hesitancy or not. Arbitration-mandated desysoppings are seldom urgent, and arbitrator requests, like the implementation notes, are another good way to avoid mistranslation. This case can be closed now. Dmcdevit·t 07:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement length

I would appreciate the assistance of the clerks in enforcing the maximum statement length limitation at [[2]]. It is not necessary for you to summarize the statement yourselves unless you wish to do so, rather, please remove the overlength statement until the responsible party shortens it.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see that excessively long evidence submissions could be a serious burden on the arbitrators. On the other hand, I am not sure that a limitation on the length of evidence submissions (as opposed to statements in advance of case acceptance) has ever been enforced before (as opposed to merely suggested). In complex cases or cases involving a long series of events, I can imagine it might be difficult to compile all relevant evidence in 1000 words. The result of enforcing such a limitation could be that the arbitrators wind up having to dig through materials themselves that would otherwise have been summarized by the parties or other commenters. Just a thought, perhaps for discussion by the arbs among themselves. Newyorkbrad 16:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that 1000 words is realistic; on the other hand I am well aware that most evidence presentations contain too much argumentation and not enough evidence (a signal-to-noise problem if you will). I'd like UninvitedCompany to comment on the evidence I presented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors/Evidence, a case I was involved with. It's a fairly comprehensive case against a single editor, and measures about 1400 words according to MS Word. Should the 1000 word limit be raised, or perhaps it should be left stated as 1000 words but enforced at 1500 or 2000. Thatcher131 17:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, the statement you made in the Guandagai editors case looks reasonable to me. That however is the exception rather than the rule. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect disputants to present the essence of the strongest arguments for their case. If necessary a link can be added to a further statement elsewhere for interested arbs. I believe that arbs should generally be expected to read all of the evidence presented, and in light of this I believe a limit makes sense. I note that many of the statements contain retaliatory material by the bucketful, which is hardly ever of any use to us. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. That's a particularly good clarification. I may quote it (frequently). Thatcher131 01:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request removal

FYI, I'm copying a note I left on Penwhale's talk page:

Hi Penwhale. I've restored the "Online Tutoring" request to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Although I voted to decline, and the case is unlikely to be accepted, I think removing it was premature. I expect you were appropriately following the text on that page which read "Cases which have either four reject votes, or, after a reasonable period, seem unlikely to reach acceptance, will be removed from this page", but that was a recent change (March 2) which I think is problematic. I've changed the text back to the previous language: "Cases which have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days will be removed from this page." I will initiate an AC discussion to resolve this. Sorry to have overruled your edit, and thanks for your help. Regards, Paul August ☎ 17:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul August ☎ 17:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a few areas, this being one, where there are minor inconsistencies between the Arbitration Policy and either the wording on the pages or what appears to be current practice. I have limited access this week, but when I get home I will post a list of the places where clarifcations might be helpful, this being one (if it's not already resolved). Frankly, I should have done this months ago, but that sort of thing always comes off as annoying persnickitiness until a seemingly minor issue of the verbiage turns out to matter to someonen, as here. Newyorkbrad 18:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
There have also been times when an arbitrator was particularly aggressive about removing cases with 4 rejected votes. I think for clearly declined cases 5 days is sufficient, but it would be good for all the arbitrators and clerks to be on the same page. Thatcher131 19:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
0/5/0/0 now. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 03:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)0/5/0/0, with 12 active arbitrators, means that 4-net will not be reached. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 19:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Well you never know, an arbiter (myself perhaps) might change their mind. Everyone, especially arbiters, should have a reasonable length of time to weigh in (5 days seems about right). In general I think that, unless the request itself is causing obvious disruption, it will usually be best to leave the request open. Paul August ☎ 21:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From Chatter...

Original was here

  • Armenia-Azerbaijan now voted to close. This was once TT's case if he wants to reclaim it for the finale; otherwise I believe Penwhale was interested. Newyorkbrad 10:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It's got 4 votes. Waiting on TT... - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 22:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • He hasn't been on much today (that pesky real life thing again, most likely), so Penwhale, let's gear up assuming it's you and me. Given the complexity of the case, could you write up your summary and post it here for double-checking? I've often wished for a second pair of eyes on mine in the more complicated cases. Newyorkbrad 23:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
My goal as clerk is to not have to do any actual work, but sit back and proofread and wave airily and say, "you've all done very well". (Or, "What, me work?", depending on whether you watch old BBC reruns on late night PBS stations.)Thatcher131 23:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voting procedures

I have proposed on arbcom-l that we amend our voting procedures such that, once committee voting on an item has been ongoing for at least 14 days, any committee members who have not voted are presumed to abstain rather than being presumed to oppose. Hence the calculated majority we use today would in effect only pertain when we are striving to pass something quickly. The main purpose is to keep cases moving and to improve clarity in the increasingly common situation where a committee member is away in the middle of a case. I think we would welcome input from the clerks, both on the practicality of such an approach and on any pitfalls we may have missed. You can respond here or on arbcom-l as you wish. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the motivation for this proposal but do have some concerns regarding how it would work in practice. I am catching a train in a little while but will post my thoughts later tonight or in the morning. Newyorkbrad 22:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
At the present time five cases would immediately close. Dpetereson would have been banned for one year with 3 votes, and Sarah777 would have been banned with just two votes (looking at the state of the proposed decision page 14 days after it was placed in voting.) Thatcher131 01:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I can see where UC is coming from, however, there are cases that are extremely complex and when multiple cases open near each other, it might be impossible. ArbCom members *DO* have a life outside of Wikipedia. And along that note, A-A 2 would've been passed with only 3 votes had the 14-day rule be in effect. (And that would be a bad idea.) - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 10:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it would be best to allow arbitrators to say "hold on, I'm not ready yet", and delay closure until they've had time to vote... David Mestel(Talk) 15:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As promised, here are some more complete thoughts on this.
First, I agree completely with UninvitedCompany that there is an issue to be address concerning delays in resolving arbitration cases. We all understand that the arbitrators have their real-life commitments, and in some instances other Wikipedia- or Wikimedia-related responsibilities as well, such that we can't expect instantaneous reactions to proposals. For that matter, it takes time, especially in the more complicated cases, to read through all of the parties' presentations and the evidence. However, that participating arbitrators should vote on the proposals in a case within 14 days after they are proposed, seems a very reasonable expectation, as does the proposition that an arbitrator who cannot get to a given case within 14 days after the proposals are posted, should be prepared to yield his or her voice in that particular case to those who do.
At the same time, some concerns occur to me with regard to the proposal as currently phrased. First, as other comments above have noted, there is the issue of what would constitute the minimum number of arbitrators to decide a given case or issue. Scenarios in which just a couple of arbitrators rule on a case seem contrary to the entire purpose of having a committee with a double-digit number of members. At a minimum, UC's suggestion should be accompanied by the designation of some minimum number of arbitrators who would constitute a quorum to take action.
The second issue raised is that sometimes, different proposals in a case are posted at different times. For example, suppose that on Day 1, Arbitrator A proposes Remedy Alpha. That remedy secures 3 more votes in support, but on Day 10, Arbitrator B opposes Remedy Alpha and instead proposes Remedy Beta. Now Day 14 arrives, with Remedy Alpha passing by 4-1. Under UC's proposal as I understand it, Alpha would now be deemed to have passed, even though everyone might have wound up agreeing that Beta was better than Alpha when arbitrators returned to the page.
Additionally, UC's proposal suggests that the majority would be different from one paragraph of every decision to the next, in cases where differing number of arbitrators have voted on each paragraph. That difficulty, though, could be overcome simply by saying something like "a proposal passes if it has more supports than opposes, provided that at least 14 days have passed from the date the proposal was made [and providing that at least X arbitrators have voted in favor].
A more general concern is that UC's proposal could be read as contrary to the current practice that, except when a temporary injunction or a motion is passed, a case is closed and all of the final decision takes effect at the same time. This would be quite a change from current practice, and I am not at all sure that it would be workable.
Thus, I think that some tinkering would be needed for UC's proposal to be workable as currently proposed with respect to pending cases. On the other hand, it might very well work (with the one modification of requiring a certain minimum number of arbitrators to vote) as stated if applied to motions in prior cases (section 3 of the main WP:RfAr page), which are generally self-contained and discrete.
I hope that this input is helpful to the arbitrators and, since I suspect that most arbs are not watching this page, will post it to the arbitrators' mailing list as well. Please bear in mind, however, that the clerks are not on that mailing list and will not see any replies. In any event, however, I strongly suggest that before a change of this potential significance is made to the arbitration policy, there be some discussion on the the main RfAr talkpage. I would be glad to participate in such discussion and to take a crack and drafting the wording for any agreed-upon revisions to the policy once a consensus is reached. Newyorkbrad 16:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If this was going to be implemented it should be 14 X days after the last new proposal is offered, and there should be a minimum number of votes regardless of the majority (maybe 4?). Also, would cases automatically close, or would the clerks simply shift the case to "motion to close"--which would create additional delays but additional opportunities for arbitrators who had not yet voted to put a hold on the decision until they could consider it. Also, if you're going to go this direction, some cases stay in "Motion to close" status for a long time; some maximum after which they are closed (if there are no objections but just not 4 to close) might also be considered. Thatcher131 17:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I think Thatcher's latest suggestion is a good idea and would be much easier to implement. How about an addition to the rules along these lines: "a case closes after four net arbitrators vote to close, or after five days have passed from the filing of the motion with no arbitrators objecting to closure." This would have helped some of the cases which sat in the motion to close phase for a week or longer. What do people think of this? Are there any downsides? Picaroon (t) 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It was not my intent to change the way we close cases. The idea was just to change the way we determine whether an item passes. The "motion to close" and voting to close a case would remain the same. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How about that if this new rule passes, we also make say that more than half of the active arbitrators (i.e. same as default majority) has to voice opinion? - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 01:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm ... that combination would make the proposal, if nothing else, easier to implement. Will have to give that one some thought. Perhaps someone with more time than I have this week can go back through some recent cases and take a look at what didn't pass, which would have with the new rule in place. I also repeat my suggestion that any changes of this nature should be exposed for comment and discussion on-wiki (in a more prominent place than here) before implementation. Newyorkbrad 02:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If any arbitrators are reading here ... What is the status of this? Newyorkbrad 13:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Dead, buried, nail through its head.
James F. (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you clarify that please? Thatcher131 22:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Retirement

I think it's about time for me to retire and see if I can find some other interests. This seems like a good time, too; there is suddenly a crop of new fresh-faced helpers, so there is plenty of time to test drive the new guys before any possible vacancies in December. (I may pull a [insert name of sports figure who has "retired" multiple times] so don't throw away my official stationery just yet, but it's time to see what's over the horizon.) Thatcher131 14:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see this, and you'll be missed on this page, but hopefully you'll be remaining active elsewhere on the project. And we reserve the right to hunt you down for advice in difficult circumstances. All the best, Newyorkbrad 14:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
awww, you've been the head clerk and most knowledgable and most senior for a while now. I second Newyorkbrad's declaration of our right to hunt you down! Hope you enjoy whatever you do next! :-) Cbrown1023 talk 16:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thatcher131, thank you for your service to the Arbitration Committee and the community. Don't be a stranger! Come back often so we don't have to hunt you down. ;-) FloNight 18:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear about your decision to move on, Thatcher, but will respect your decision and will not attempt to retain you against your will. (Tracking device status: active.). Picaroon (t) 18:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your work. Enjoy the wider wiki. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you all. Thatcher131 01:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go as you were very professional in the face of less than professional cirumstances. What will you do without all of the most serious of silliness known as "Arbitration?" There is always Fark to fill that void :). --Tbeatty 07:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Official stationery? Oh, the perks :) In all seriousness, thanks for all your hard work around this place - even as an outside eye looking in whenever possible, it's clear that this is an important and, at times tedious, task. Cheers, Daniel 08:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there such thing as retiring from clerking? I think Thatcher is just trying to hide the fact that he wants to run for ArbCom at the end of the year. he needs to lower his wikiholic level. he has been a phantom part of the clerks he needs to step away from the computer. :P - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 10:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Hell. Note the absence of snowballs.
Hell. Note the absence of snowballs.
To use an alternate metaphor specific to Penwhale, I will run for ArbCom when the ferry makes a profit. Thatcher131 14:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You do realize that after such statements the impossible does happen. :) -- Cat chi? 22:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Just saw this. I would like to commend and thank Thatcher for the excellent job he has done here. Nothing associated with the Committee's work is easy. Each case is important, usually complex and with outcomes that can affect people's lives, and have wide ranging implications for the encyclopedia as a whole. It has been nice to know that Thatcher could always be relied upon to act responsibly and with integrity. His work here has been of enormous help to me personally as well as the entire Committee. Moreover, I have found his substantive contributions to our cases to be very useful in helping to inform my decisions. For all of which I am grateful — So Thatcher, thank you. — I hope we will continue to enjoy the benefits of his attentions, as his time and inclinations allow. And though I would not wish it on anyone, and being sane he seems to be disinclined, in my opinion, he would make an excellent addition to the Committee. All my best, Paul August ☎ 18:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur 100% with Paul above - Thatcher has done a wonderful job and we're going to sorely miss him. Raul654 20:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
He's lucky ArbCom isn't allowed to draft people. Paul speaks for me here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Offering Clerk Assistance

[edit] Assistance (July 2007)

Just as a friendly note, I'm interesting in helping the clerks out if they need/want me. If you need any help, if you're going away for a week or two and need someone to dump a case on in the meantime, I'm here to help :) I did a little bit of ArbCom clerking earlier this year, but a series of events all happened pretty quickly which reduced my Wiki-time. Now, things seem to be stabilizing out, so I figure I'll reoffer my informal services. Cheers, Daniel 01:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Daniel. Given that most of us are in the Northern Hemisphere, there have been a fair number of summer vacation wiki-breaks, etc., so we will definitely be taking advantage of your kind offer. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll also put in my offer to help out if needed as well. I'm also thinking about possibly doing some automation of arbcom clerk tasks if they are open to the idea. (such as opening cases, closing cases, ect.) —— Eagle101Need help? 14:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Note about the bot, see Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Opening_a_case_with_ArbComBot for instructions on its use. To make it run type in run=yes (in the run field) if you are not so daring and want to test first, go right ahead, type run=test). —— Eagle101Need help? 23:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to help out - I've been a spectator at RFARB for a long time now, but I've very rarely contributed, with regards to making edits. Any spare tasks - notifying parties, answering queries or simply tidying up RfARBs (link fixing, etc...) - would be received with enthusiasm. Should I just keep an eye out for things to do? ~ Anthøny 22:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, just make sure to coordinate here. Whenever someone says that they'll be gone for a little bit, speak up that you can watch their cases (and other tasks that may be listed here). Cbrown1023 talk 22:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
At the moment, we seem to have enough clerks working on the integral tasks, but Cbrown is correct that you are very welcome to pop in if any of us say we are going to be away for a bit. Other tasks that need help are, as Brad said, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement (some days the backlog is pretty big), Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests/Involved parties, which has gotten very behind but could be useful again. Make sure you have read up on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures. Picaroon (t) 22:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers; I'll be sure to re-read the procedures page, etc... Anthøny (contact ⇔ talk) 15:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clerking Opportunities? (October 2007)

As some might remember, it was suggested that I might be permitted to Clerk a RfArb a little while back. Despite my enthusiasm, I had to decline that due to an upcoming (very) large workload, which was going to severely cut back my time on Wikipedia (see here). However, I'm now back, ready and waiting for some tasks ... are there any chances for a bored Wikipedian to look after a Case, under the watchful eye of those more experienced?

If some justification is required, I've been following WP:RFARB closely for a while now, so I'd like to say I'm well-rehearsed in how the system works; I'm also experienced with Dispute Resolution, being a Mediator myself.

Anthøny ん 16:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Please feel free to keep an eye on things and start pitching in on the various chores around here, and then you'll be assigned a case to open or close. I expect to be less active in clerking during the upcoming election period, so there will be more work for others. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
If you're looking for clerks, I could help. You probably have enough for now, but I'm available if extra help is needed. Wizardman 21:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Anyone interested should take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks for a job description and then keep an eye on this page. Newyorkbrad 21:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we could help out with the archiving of this page? I understand there is no consistent archiving system here, yet I've noticed a lot of useful discussions being hosted here. Perhaps Wizardman and I could chip in with that? Otherwise, I tidied up Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures (e.g., [3], [4]), so I hope that sort of thing is found useful. Regards, Anthøny 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The general rule is that we archive things that might be useful for the future, rather than mundane day-to-day details of case administration. If you think anything of lasting value has been deleted that should have been archived, though, please feel free to rescue it. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, as far as I recall, we always have treated this area like a "whiteboard" that we write on and erase. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

We are always looking for clerk helpers. This is the path to becoming an Official ArbCom Clerk (if you want to be one.) It is important for us to have a group of well groomed helpers so that when a Clerk leaves we can quickly replace them. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not that I'm focusing on becoming an ArbCom clerk - it's simply that I've recently had a lot more time for Wikipedia, and just want to lend a hand ;) Anthøny 15:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technical advances

{{ACA}} can now be used on proposed decision talk pages. The benefit is that now, when an arbitrator's status changes, the update can be made in one edit on the template, instead of a dozen times on the various talk pages. For example, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Artaxerex/Proposed decision, then click edit. I will hold off on making this change to all cases until some other people have reviewed the concept and determined it has no holes.

Also, see the new first step at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Opening a case, which I have modified to include a pre-loading case template. Please tell me if anything is confusing, but I think these are both pretty simple changes, and lead to less work. Picaroon (t) 01:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me, although when there are changes we'll still have to update the number of arbitrators (and sometimes the majority) on the proposed decision pages themselves. Newyorkbrad 15:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, one of the two, the list on the talk or the majority note on the voting page, need to remain as they are. I decided the following will be the easiest: When an arbitrator says he or she is going away, downgrade the majorities one by one as per usual, but of course check to make sure they have not voted on any these cases. Then, opening your contribution log in one tab and the template in the other, move the use to inactive/away on {{ACA}} in all the cases that appear in your recent edit history. Does this method make sense? As I mentioned on IRC, if there are 12 cases, this is thirteen edits instead of 24.
I'll go ahead and make the change now. Picaroon (t) 03:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
If this works well, we can also create a simpler template for the sentence on each /Proposed decision page which gives the number of arbitrators and the majority. Also, as I think about it, we will need at some point to explain how the new template works to the arbitrators, as they sometimes move themselves to active when they vote on a particular case. Newyorkbrad 03:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added instructions to the template, and will email the list now to inform them of how to update their status with this template (email presumably reaching more arbitrators than WT:RFAR). Picaroon (t) 03:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I just updated the template for the first time (Mackensen to away on all cases, except for Allegations of apartheid where he's already voted) and it worked very well. One question that I spotted though is what we do with the listings of the cases that are now closed. I had started to delete one of them, but then realized that would leave a blank on the proposed decision talkpage for the closed case. Should we leave such cases on the templates forever, or find another way of dealing with it? Maybe we should make copying the final list of arbitrators onto the talkpage a step in the case-closing process? Newyorkbrad 17:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Substing will work to preserve the list while de-transcluding the template. I'll take care of periodically trimming the old lists off the bottom of the template, it doesn't need to be done with any frequency. Picaroon (t) 00:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, substing works. Ignore my hidden "don't subst" notes, those are for during the case. Picaroon (t) 00:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds perfect. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 00:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Willing to help out

I'm willing to help out with clerking. I've been doing a little work already around requests for arbitraton.--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 21:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help out in any way needed, too. I've been monitoring the main RFAR page for a bit, and giving informal housekeeping-type help there of the kind the clerks welcome. I'll just keep doing that if that's all that's needed now, but I thought I'd list myself as willing to do more if there's need. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
<aol>Me too!</aol> I expect that with NYB's "ascension" and the other appointments there will be a rush of work, and I'm around to give a hand if needed. — Coren (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for volunteering to help out! It comes at a great time because a lot of our current clerks are busy with other things or on wikibreak. Please make sure you all read WP:AC/C/P and use this noticeboard to coordinate if need be. Thanks again! :-) Cbrown1023 talk 07:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I had previously offered to help.[5] Unfortunately, I would have to recuse from all the cases where I am involved, but that's no more than 50% of them. Jehochman Talk 02:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I am also interested in clerking. I have already read WP:AC/C/P. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good, well, the stuff we basically do is fix the level of headings, rename cases to more suitable names and fix up the formatting of requests that...er...haven't been formatted properly, though leave it to the clerks to open and close cases ;-)--Phoenix-wiki 16:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I appologise for this in advance because I really don't want to tread on anyones toes but I'd also like to help out. I've been active in arbitration for some time and fully understand the process - I'd be happy to help out wherever needed. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You could help me catalog all the past editing restrictions. See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. You can look at completed arbitration requests from August 2007 and work backwards from there. Jehochman Talk 02:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm on it...--Phoenix-wiki 12:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Also like to help out as well, however (after recent events, see now archived "Incorrect clerking" topic in diffs) I will/should request a mentoring agreement. I should also apologize after how I conducted myself on this board last month. I now realize that what I have done could have disrupted the whole RfArb page. I will not do it again if I become a full time official clerk. --- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Announcement

A couple of weeks ago (before any of the current helper notices) Coren and Jayvdb contacted FT2 about clerking. Based on temporal priority, I am going to offer to list Coren and Jayvdb as clerk trainees at WP:AC/C. I'm also listing Daniel (talk) who has been hanging around and helping here and there. Thanks to the rest of you for your offers of assistance; general help like formatting and other cleanup is always appreciated and you don't need to be a clerk or trainee or anything else to do that. The next time we need new clerks or trainees, we will look first at whomever has been hanging around making themselves useful. Thanks again. Thatcher 04:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mentors Can a full-time clerk pick up either Coren or Jayvdb as mentors? It's not meant to be an exclusive role, just a first point of contact for questions, etc. Thatcher 04:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to take either one, if they can cope with my GMT-orientated timing. David Mestel(Talk) 16:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I usually edit late EST; which means the middle of the night on your side of the pond— but I'm unable to stay away from Wikipedia for significant lengths of time, so I can be found mulling about irregularly most of the day. :-) — Coren (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank the new trainees and everyone else who offered to help out for your interest and assistance. I also appreciate Thatcher's return to active clerking and his coordinating with the new trainees. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help

I know their seems to be a surplus of arbcom clerks at the moment, but I'm open to helping :) . Just let me know. Mønobi 21:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You might watchlist this page and WP:RFAR. Though a lot of people have volunteered to be clerk helpers, many of them have just not come back, so there's plenty of work to go around.--Phoenix-wiki 21:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to offers of assistance by Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs), Heimstern (talk · contribs), Coren (talk · contribs), Jehochman (talk · contribs), Nishkid64 (talk · contribs), Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs) and Whiteandnerdy111 (talk · contribs) (now banned) in the last couple of weeks:

A couple of weeks ago (before any of the current helper notices) Coren and Jayvdb contacted FT2 about clerking. Based on temporal priority, I am going to offer to list Coren and Jayvdb as clerk trainees at WP:AC/C. I'm also listing Daniel (talk) who has been hanging around and helping here and there. Thanks to the rest of you for your offers of assistance; general help like formatting and other cleanup is always appreciated and you don't need to be a clerk or trainee or anything else to do that. The next time we need new clerks or trainees, we will look first at whomever has been hanging around making themselves useful. Thanks again. Thatcher 04:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically, the "general help like formatting and other cleanup is always appreciated and you don't need to be a clerk or trainee or anything else to do that" applies and will be great :) However, as Thatcher notes, there is an ample supply of appointed clerks and trainees, and new trainees are generally chosen from the start of that list (with considerations such as trustworthiness, general activity and attitude, aptitude etc.) as well as activity in-and-around the arbitration pages (albeit not within the handful of tasks limited to clerks and trainees by Arbitrator instruction; see also this — such actions include opening and closing cases, removing requests from WP:RfAr etc.). I'll make sure this section is archived, just like the last one was, to ensure a record of your assistance should people from the list be required down the track exists (as a record of the date of your expression of interest). Of course, the Arbitrators hold the final decision as to all activites on Arbitration pages, and they may be consulted with regards to some users' activity in this area. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Injunction procedure

  • Do injunctions need to wait 24 hours after the first vote, the last vote or neither (in that once they reach the required majority they can be implemented)? Daniel (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Injunctions don't require a majority they require a net of four. Does it say anything on the template? The time frame is to allow a decent interval for an objection; if it is clear there won't be any (it's 6-0 after 10 minutes for example) then go ahead. Either 24 hours after the 4th net vote or 24 hours after the first vote works for me, since these are temporary injunctions anyway. Thatcher 12:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Crap, I was reading the requirements for motions and not injunctions. Thanks Thatcher and Newyorkbrad, Daniel (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • By the way, the proposed decision template conflicts with WP:AP#Injunctions: "24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed" compared to "A grace period of twenty four hours is usually observed between the fourth Aye vote and the enactment of the Injunction; however, Arbitrators may, in exceptional circumstances". Daniel (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That's a very good point. I once started making a list of all the various minor contradictions in the templates and the instructions, but I missed that one. Why don't you send me an e-mail and I'll forward it to the committee and see if there is any interest in fixing the contradiction. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I just sent one kinda-pointless email to your mailing list only a matter of minutes ago, so you guys may think I'm a nutcase of something who's trying to annoy them :) If you still have that other list with the contradictions, now you're in a position to fix it. Drafting (very short) email to you now. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, can a clerk (*stares at Thatcher*) check these 19 contribs and make sure I've done everything I've needed to for a temporary injunction? I've never done one before, and there's no documented procedure for it (that I could find, anyways), so I was trying to use common sense (emphasis on trying, no comment on success or failure). By the way, per "The time frame is to allow a decent interval for an objection", I passed the injunction straight after the fourth vote, given it's been up since the 30th (plenty of time to object if someone wanted to). Daniel (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Whoops, I archived this when it wasn't answered. Has this been resolved, and if not, is a Clerk going to look at the query? Anthøny 16:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I checked before, the notifications were fine. This thread can be archived (rather than blanked) since this comes up a lot. Thatcher 17:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further discussion on the Case Template's content

I read with interest Newyorkbrad's comments on the Waterboarding case's proposed decision subpage:

Perhaps the heading should be changed to "Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions", for this case and/or on the template for future cases.

—Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Proposed decision#Logging of sanctions, a proposed enforcement

Would it be worthwhile implementing this, to provide further transparency? It would be easy to bring this in to co-exist alongside the General sanctions page, and enable a single area of reference for those researching cases.

Thoughts?
Anthøny 18:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

On a principle of silent consensus, I have been bold and implemented this to the case template. As yet, I have not updated the instructions regarding making a restriction, but I will do so soon (if that makes no sense, I apologise—it is more as a reminder to myself that it still needs done :-) AGK (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Y Done. AGK (contact) 20:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refactor of RFAR page

I've been refactoring the RFAR page to make it easier to use for both ourselves, and the community. Changes summarized as follows:

  1. Clarifications, appeals, motions etc - these now also use a template format (like main cases) which should help us manage and follow those cases a lot easier. Before, they were a mass of threaded talk. Now we can much easier see what's what for quick review of requests and evidence. Will move to a template format, when the necessary template syntax to keep it simple is added to WikiMedia :-)
  2. New page created Wikipedia:Arbitration guide. The old RFAR header was a bit of a problem -- it was trying to contain a lot of important information so it was lengthy, and yet, as a header it was trying to keep short so some useful matters were omitted too. I've forked it to its own page, where additional information can be cleanly added if necessary without wording up the introduction of RFAR. I think RFAR header still says the key facts, and it now links to the guide, for the rest.

FT2 (Talk | email) 19:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maintenance of order of case pages

Clerks,

The problem of poor conduct on case pages (Evidence, workshop, and PD talk particularly) is not new, but as you are aware new lows have been reached on the MM evidence page. Thatcher has recently protected this and at least one other case page.

The admin community in general is reluctant to deal assertively with such conduct for various reasons (many of them valid). I believe that unrecused clerks can and should feel empowered to deal with such abuse in the context of the normal editing guidelines we follow. Specifically, editors who persist (edit war) in making disorderly edits (particularly, a) changing or deleting signed statements by others and b) commenting on a page or portion of a page where their edits are not welcome) should, after being warned, be blocked for reasonable durations (24 hours or less). Though there hasn't been an official vote, no one on the committee has voiced any opposition to this. I would suggest that users blocked under these circumstances be advised that they may submit any relevant statement on their talk page or to arbcom-l.

I believe that actions that may be perceived as censorship are best avoided. Thus, misplaced comments should be moved (to the appropriate section or the talk page) rather than deleted, and personal attacks and links to doubtful sites should (if signed) be left in place for evaluation by the committee. In like fashion, page protection should be used only when necessary and only then for short durations.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ACA template

Now that there are a couple of months of experience in working with {{Template:ACA}} on proposed decision talkpages, I'm curious if the feeling is that using this template has made the task of keeping the arbitrator lists on the cases up-to-date easier, or more complicated. Just wondering, because there have been mixed views on this in the past. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the way it currently is. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose it is particularly complicated, both in usage and in the content of coding—however, I can't see any obvious way of simplifying it, and the requirements of learning to use it certainly outweigh the workload requirements involved in updating all of the arbitrator lists manually. Having said that, all of the folks currently Clerking are tech- and code-savvy, so, generally, I concur with Rlevse: it's good the way it is :) AGK (contact) 20:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move to voting

I reverted a move of Betacommand to voting by Daniel; in reviewing I notice I wrote roughly in the edit summary, and that I regret but can't undo now, so publicly, my apologies and that I would revert and rewrite gentler if able. Sorry.

In general, a formal move to "voting" is worth checking if it happens too soon, and usually shouldnt happen until the evidence has ben up a while, digested, and we're into voting more than evidence issues. Usually I'd be reluctant to see a move to voting for at least a week, often more like 10 days. In the past (Hoffman/Ceurden for example) there has been harsh criticism when a case moves to voting too quickly. At a minimum all significant parties should have had a chance to put up evidence and ideally the main responses and rebuttals to some of these are up as well. It's hard to justify voting to parties who can respond that there were missing facts, and therefore any votes will often be deemed suspect and the results may become a dispute point even if fair (rightly so).

That said, draft principles and such may well be posted before then (as in this case)... probably harmless but not a cause for a movement to "voting" unless the "evidence" phase seems reasonably likely to be complete enough to support decisions. I'd even be in favor of a template saying "Proposed decision is/is not yet open" to prevent too-premature posting.....

$0.02 ... thoughts?

And again, my apologies once more to Daniel.

FT2 (Talk | email) 22:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd tentatively say that this isn't a matter for the Clerks: Daniel really only was implementing the progress of the case—UninvitedCompany opened voting on the case :) On your fundamental point, FT2, I would say that speedy moves of a case to voting should be avoided. Around a week of evidence receiving before voting can open sounds like a good threshold for the quieter cases, but I personally think a general agreement on the AC list before moving to voting on the larger cases would be a better system. Thoughts? AGK § 22:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
FT2, this might better be raised on Arbcom-L. My feeling is that UC should not have placed proposals on the proposed decision page if he did not want them voted on. Thatcher 22:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Cases probably should stay in "evidence" until there's a relatively complete decision to be voted on, not (as here) just a couple of principles. Therefore, I agree with FT2 that Betacommand should stay under "Evidence" for now, but Daniel's edit is also completely understandable, and it's not a critical matter either way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with UC's decision to start voting after just one day, and hence I showed my reluctance and astonishment by adding a "..." to the end of my edit summary. That being said, if proposals are open to voting, I cannot see the justification for not listing it as a "voting" case. I agree with you, FT2, that cases shouldn't be moved into the voting phase until a fair amount of time, but the template of open tasks isn't meant to represent "proper procedure" or "arbitration utopia", but more a brief summary of where the current case is; which, in this case, is voting. While I am baffled and disappointed that the BC 2 case has started voting already, I will defer to your decision on the template despite the fact that I do not fully understand it. As AGK says, I was merely updating the template to reflect the state of the case, not trying to prove a point or anything about how I feel voting so soon is the incorrect decision. Apology fully accepted and probably unnecessary, hopefully the specifics of this can be ignored and we can focus on the general issue of cases moving into voting too soon. Daniel (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The distinction between "evidence" and "voting" phases is an artificial one that was introduced by a well-meaning clerk to provide some more status information on the open tasks template. There is no such distinction in any actual arbcom policy or procedure; we don't stop accepting evidence after some period of time and only then start on the decision. There has always been overlap. Those who wish to formalize a new procedure may make a proposal to do so. I frankly do not see a problem in posting proposed principles quickly. It is not my intention to write the entire decision at this time, just some key principles. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, but note that users (especially accused parties) seem to find early voting moves quite disturbing and have reacted badly to them as "you're judging before we've even begun posting evidence" in the past. Probably for some principles and FoF as you say we know they'll be in there but to them it just makes it feel like a kangeroo case if we do :-/ Is there a way to do that and not have that effect on users? Or do we take the simple route and keep to the grace period (as Daniel says), which "doesn't hurt us" even if some principles will be obvious, out of thought for users? I'm incliuned to do as Daniel suggests and keep a 1 week grace period as a norm. We can always discuss privately before then, and we can't do much beyond basics until the bulk of the evidence is in anyway. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:AP#Hearing seems to suggest that [t]here is usually a grace period of one week between the opening of the case and the beginning of deliberations by the Committee. Daniel (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Since a case might conceiveably have evidence, tentative voting, and an injunction at the same time, maybe a better format would be columns with check marks for applicable stages? On the other hand I have to admit I like our present template look, because it makes clear roughly how far along the case is, much more clearly. Or maybe that's just my own familiarity with it? FT2 (Talk | email) 14:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Does the presence of proposals, especially by committee members, in the workshop pages not raise the same issues? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It allows for community discussion on the proposal and conveys a sense of consideration, in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
On the workshop page, proposals by committee members are not given any special weight, despite the fact that they are coming from community members who generally get things right the first time. They can be workshopped by everyone. Moving them to the proposed decision and voting on them quickly may prevent community members from being involved in defining and refining the underlying principles of their community. John Vandenberg (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Clerk appointments

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that effective immediately, AGK (Anthony), Daniel, and Rlevse have been appointed as additional Arbitration Committee Clerks. The committee appreciates their assistance as well as the work of the current Clerks and of Clerk helpers/trainees Coren and Jayvdb. For the committee, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the official appointment. I enjoy clerking and will continue to support the arb committee and other clerks the best I can. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ditto Rlevse :) Daniel (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Same here. Thanks all. AGK § 07:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations everyone. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 07:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
*golf clap*. Well done, chaps. Well done. — Coren (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Note: It wasn't mean sarcastically, but in a brit "jolly good show" way. Just so you know.  :-) — Coren (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Congrats all. Paul August ☎ 00:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Welcome aboard.--Ryan Delaney talk 02:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, thank you ;) AGK § 18:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations from me, also. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposals on post-close motions etc.

Discuss. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the section's existence is confusing, and is better left out. It's not that difficult to put it back in if needed. — Coren (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure our intelligent arbitrators will realise to put the section in as they need it :) Daniel (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I already noted my thoughts on this in the Clerks' IRC channel, but I would like to publicly note that I support this change. It will help pre-empt any mistaken additions of proposals into the Arbitrators' voting section—it's a very reasonable for a party to try and "hand" the arb's proposals to vote on, if they are not aware that this is not the case—which have recently arisen :) Anthøny 22:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
On the same topic: is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motions, currently linked at the bottom of {{ArbComOpenTasks}}, now redundant to the arbitrator-placed sections on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions? Or should arbitrators be making the motions on /Motions independant to all the other discussions, rather than as subsections on /Clarifications and motions? If not, should we change the link on {{ArbComOpenTasks}} to point to /Clarifications and motions? Questions galore :) Daniel (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I liked the entire page the way it was three months ago.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
What, nearly empty? :) Agreed, though — I don't think we need a separate page for motions and clarifications, and they'll just get neglected more. The vote-only page, in my opinion, is also unnecessary. Daniel (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
For example, there hasn't been a single edit to that page beyond basic formatting fixing since it was split on April 5. Motions and clarifications are neglected enough as it is :( Daniel (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I liked the "clarifications" section to be much more free-form rather than structured as it is now. In discussion on the mailing list I was outvoted, but maybe I'll change it back one day and see if anyone notices. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Snap. :) Daniel (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem was, the main RFArb page was hard to navigate - seperating requests and clarifications/motions help organise things better. All it takes is to click one button to watchlist the new page.... Ryan Postlethwaite 02:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact, I am of a similar school of thought to that of Newyorkbrad here: the rigorous, structured approach we have to RfAr is, I feel, not completely compatible with the Clarifications process. Granted, some sort of organisation is required, both to allow for easier navigation, and easier implementation of decisions (i.e., to make the Clerks' job easier :). The current Clarifications template's approach had the advantage of keeping things neat and to the point: the headings involved in such threads were no longer 8+ words long, which by extension, prevented the 90+%-wide TOC seen on RfAr, which I had attempted but failed to remedy with a width-restricted table of contents some time ago. Now that that is no longer such a problem (the Clarifications page's front matter is much less bulky than WP:RfAr's), I think it would be beneficial to look at some sort of rethinking regarding the RfAr/Clarifications template. That may well be a little into the future—from Brad's above comment, it seems the AC has rejected the idea of such a reorganisation—but I do hope it eventually comes along. Anthøny 15:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk helpers

I propose that Nishkid64 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) and Ryan Postlethwaite (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) begin working as clerk helpers. They were at the top of the wait list last go around and both are very respected as editors and admins. I've emailed the arbs about this and seek input from us all here. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Having been in contact with Nishkid64 about this for a while now (and failing him badly on two different occasions, so I feel a tad guilty), I would be happy to be his "mentor". Daniel (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree. Cbrown1023 talk 02:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • AGK concurred in the arb clerk mail list. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome aboard, I've added both gents to Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Current_Clerks, posted on their talk pages, and asked them to fix their time zone and pick a letter code. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks all - it's going to pleasure working with you all (well except for AGK and Daniel of course who I've interacted way too much with at MedCom already :-) ). Nah, I'm really looking forward to it - appologies in advance for me bugging you with questions over the next couple of weeks whilst I get my head around clerking. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Bring the questions on, Ryan. :) Welcome aboard, to both of you; it'll be good fun working with both of you. Incidentally, I'd just like to confirm what Rlevse mentioned above: I agreed to the move on the Clerks' mailing list. Speaking of that, should we have a list administrator add Nish. and Ryan to mail:Clerks-l? Anthøny 18:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Never dear AGK - it's already been taken care of. I'm just waiting for final approval from the list mod. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Daniel already added them to the email list. James F added them to IRC. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was just going to reply concerning IRC, but Rlevse pre-empted me there. :) Any queries, don't hesitate to pipe up, on the mailing list, the IRC channel, or on here. Please remember, however, most "official" co-ordination (opening cases, queries regarding arbitrator votes or status, et cetera) should be made on this noticeboard, for transparency purposes (although the mailing list does have a public archive), or, at least, cross-posted to here. This is, after all, our "official" home. Anthøny 18:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New template: {{RfarOpenTasks}}

I have created a new template, Template:RfarOpenTasks. It is essentially modelled on {{ArbComOpenTasks}}, but instead deals with requests for clarifications (and motions in prior cases), as opposed to open cases. I also plan to extend it to encompass requests for arbitration in the future, although I anticipate the "status" system may operate slightly differently.

Thoughts, comments, or improvements are welcome. I'd like to set about making this part of the standard duties of the Clerks (in addition to the usual tidying-up of requests for arbitration), and I plan to author detailed documentation within the next few days.

Regards, Anthøny 23:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it, great job. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
But some of the links don't work when you click on them. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Great help! And especially the status tags :) FT2 (Talk | email) 03:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
For Rlevse: noted; the code is still being finished off, and fixing the links are on my to-do for that. I recently made some amendments, which may remedy the problem; if the links are still broken, I'll have a look at them at some point tonight. For FT2: thanks; hopefully it'll help guide (or "target"?) the arbitrators' activities to where they are most needed. Anthøny 18:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coren and Jayvdb now full Clerks

All,

The Committee is happy to confirm Coren and Jayvdb to be full Clerks.

Our congratulations to them, and our thanks to you all for the work you put in.

James F. (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Coren and Jay are now official clerks! I asked the arbs to consider this in the same message I told them I was proposing Nish and Ryan as helpers. See the arb edit to the clerk list. CONGRATS! — Rlevse • Talk • 13:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks James for the note and congrats to Coren and John. Daniel (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Welcome aboard, chaps. Anthøny 18:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)