| Revision as of 19:43, 21 July 2012 editCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,578 edits →Discussion: new section on notification of parties about proposed decisions and additional sanctions added to initial proposed decisions← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:44, 1 January 2025 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,738 edits →WP:A/C alignment: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| = Noticeboard = | = Noticeboard = | ||
| {{/Header}} | {{/Header}} | ||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| | age=90 | |||
| ⚫ | | archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/archive | ||
| | numberstart=10 | |||
| | maxarchsize=150000 | |||
| | header={{Archive}} | |||
| | minkeepthreads=2 | |||
| | minarchthreads=1 | |||
| | format= %%i | |||
| }} | |||
| ⚫ | {{archive box|search =yes| | ||
| ⚫ | * ] (to 26 January 2006) | ||
| ⚫ | * ] (to 28 January 2006) | ||
| ⚫ | * ] (archive of a discussion started on January 29, 2006 at the ]) | ||
| ⚫ | * ] (to 28 January 2006) | ||
| * ] (February 2006→December 2008, clerks' coordination board) | |||
| * ] (December 2008→March 2010, clerks' coordination board) | |||
| ⚫ | * ] (January 2006→May 2009) | ||
| * ] (May 2009→June 2012, noticeboard merged) | |||
| * ] (June 2012→September 2014) | |||
| * ] (September 2014→September 2015) | |||
| * ] (3 October→4 November 2015) | |||
| * ] (October 2015→March 2021) | |||
| ⚫ | * ] (April 2021→present) | ||
| {{#ifexist:Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/archive 12|* ] (fill in dates please)|}} | |||
| }} | |||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| <div style="border-top: 1px solid #aaa; font-style: italic; padding-left: 1.6em"> | |||
| ---- | |||
| '''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. | |||
| </div> | |||
| == ARBPIA5 motion at ARCA == | |||
| ==Pending Requests== | |||
| :'' None, currently.'' | |||
| ==Open Cases== | |||
| ''All work relating to Arbitration cases already opened.'' | |||
| == Arbitrator announcements == | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Current Members}} | |||
| :''Arbitrators, please note if you wish to declare yourself active or away/inactive, either generally or for specific cases. The clerks will update the relevant cases as needed. If you are returning, please indicate whether you wish to be: 1) Put back to active on all cases; 2) Left on inactive on all open cases, and only put to active on new cases; or 3) Left to set yourself to active on cases you wish (remember to update the majority on its /Proposed decision page).'' | |||
| == Long term projects == | |||
| = Discussion = | |||
| :'''''Please use this section if you are not a clerk or arbitrator, but require clerical assistance.''''' | |||
| ⚫ | {{archive box|search=yes| | ||
| ⚫ | * ] (to 26 January |
||
| ⚫ | * ] (to 28 January |
||
| ⚫ | * ] (archive of a discussion started on January 29, 2006 at the ]) | ||
| ⚫ | * ] (to 28 January |
||
| ⚫ | * ] ( |
||
| ⚫ | * ] ( |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| I've just updated the archive box located at ] with . It is something that rarely gets done, and almost always some time after a new archive page has been created. Not sure if it can be done automatically. Ironically, as I was typing this, the archiving bot created the next page along (see for ]). So that now needs adding to that archive box. Is this something that clerks would be willing to do, or have on a list of things to keep updated? ] (]) 07:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC) <small>PS. There is also a strange stray April section at the bottom of ], I think it was due to by an arbitrator to the wrong location.</small> | |||
| == Archiving of arbitration noticeboard talk page == | |||
| Refers to ]. | |||
| There are some sections at ] (the arbitration noticeboard talk page) that are not archiving properly. I think this is because those posting sections on the talk page are not dating them, and the archive bot is only picking up sections where people comment as that provides a date for the archive bot to latch on to. This has been fixed with , but it might be an idea to document this somewhere so it doesn't get forgotten again. ] (]) 07:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :It is documented at ]. I think it was just a small matter of new clerks not knowing how to do everything correctly yet. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 15:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| For motion 5 (ARBPIA5) it states that there are 10 active arbs and since 1 has abstained, 5 is a majority. However, L235 (an inactive arb) has voted on it, so the majority needs to be altered to 6. | |||
| ==Glkanter== | |||
| Glkanter initially had a one year ban per ]. As noted at an ], Arbcom Member Elen of the Roads changed the block settings for Glkanter on 22 June 2012 to indefinite and additionally added a block on the email due to reasons listed in the MfD. I'm not sure where you note these things, but perhaps the bottom of ] needs to be modified to reflect the Arbcom change in blocking of Glkanter and further restriction on email usage. Also, ] and ] should show a link to the arbcom decision, but I don't know what template to use for that. -- ] (]) 08:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I'm unsure if that affects the numbers for any of the other motions (or indeed any other cases) but it clearly does for this one. ] 20:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Question on protocol== | |||
| Do you guys handle this or can regular admins like me take care of it: ]? Thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 01:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like something regular admins can take care of. -- ] (]) 03:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Marked as active on the one motion. ], we'll assume you're not active on the other 6 motions unless you indicate otherwise or vote on them. ] ] 20:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Votes on Fæ case == | |||
| == ] alignment == | |||
| With the seventh vote from David Fuchs ] should be listed as being passed in the implementation notes, and there are other votes from David that need to be tallied.--] (]) 22:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I update the notes about once a day, so occasionally it may fall a bit behind. So, don't fret if you see the notes don't take account of some new votes, it just means me or another clerk are busy. Best, ] (]) 22:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Traditionally (defined as "in 2007 when I was a clerk") we posted the implementation notes near the end of the case, just to make sure everyone was in agreement about what was passing. Over time, we occasionally had an instance where an arbitrator would ask for the notes earlier (to see how first and second choices on alternatives were being tallied, for example), but only where there was a specific reason for them. I'm not sure it's necessary to post implementation notes right after the proposed decision is posted (at which point nothing at all will be passing) and then have to keep updating them. I wonder how other arbs and clerks (and other editors too of course) might feel about this—if the way it's being done now is useful it should continue, but I hate to have extra work that doesn't help much. ] (]) 02:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't feel strongly one way or the other about keeping a constant tally; practically speaking though, I think at least ''creating'' the template (a somewhat annoying task) at the beginning at bottom is a way to get important work done in non-crunch time and at top a way for both arbitrators and editors generally to visually 'see' the organization of the decision. -- ] (]) 03:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The running implementation notes are valuable in that they make obvious the brinksmanship/gamesmanship that has in the past casued "If A then not B otherwise C" voting. ] (]) 11:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Since I started clerking cases, the tendancy has moved forward towards more regular updating. I feel that that is a Good Thing™ as it helps clarify voting as it progresses. It is also, for me, easier to keep a track of what is passing and what is not, especially when there are the 'first choice / second choice / only choice / only iff 3.1.1(a)(i) passes' calculations. The most complicated task is the initial calculation and set-up of the template. Updating is an easier task.<p>That said, all the clerks are volunteers, and if a case clerk wants to update the implementation notes every six hours, I see no reason to prevent them doing so, and if another chooses to wait longer, we should not be overly concerned either. I would absolutely resist any attempt to codify when they should first be calculated, and at what frequency they be updated. ] (]) 12:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I agree with Alex --] | ] 12:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Fair enough. As I think about it, the change may have come about because the typical case before the Committee is more complicated than it used to be. A lot of cases were resolved through arbitration in earlier years that today would be handled by a single administrator or in an AN/ANI thread, and typically ArbCom gets only the more complicated disputes. When I was clerking, there were times that the implementation notes were something like "everything passes," which obviously didn't require a templated voting chart, etc. Obviously there aren't many cases like that these days (although we did have a few in the early part of 2011). Regards, ] (]) 17:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| The box at ] used to be on the left side of the page. There is a parameter used in {{tl|ArbComOpenTasks}} called {{para|acotalign|left}}, but that parameter seems to no longer do anything, and the box now floats way down bottom-right. I tried a few things to fix this but they didn't work. Complicating things, for whatever reason the box floats left in preview. Any ideas? <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 06:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Username links in case summaries== | |||
| It's a minor point but the ] omits the usual username links. Those links are, IMO, more helpful than the link to Perth, and are usually included (see other noticeboard summaries). Can they be added to this summary? Also, if any arbitrators are reading this, I (with others) on the noticeboard talk page thread that the final decision might have been clearer if fleshed out a bit more by the arbitrators before the case closed. It certainly caused some confusion among some admins, as I get the impression they were looking at this decision trying to work out why some admins were desysopped and some not, and it wasn't awfully clear if you hadn't been following the case. ] (]) 19:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :], it looks fine on my screen? It appears that {{para|acotalign}} was removed ], so that parameter has been worthless for over a decade at this point. <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 02:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notifying parties about proposed decisions== | |||
| ::@]: What skin are you using? I'm using Vector-22. Checking now, it does align left in Vector. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I was looking a bit further into some of the circumstances of the Perth case, and one point that came up at the noticeboard talk page discussion was that kwami appeared to have not being paying close attention to the arbitration case and either wasn't aware of, or wasn't taking seriously, the desysop motion (the desysop motions were added on to the with the following edits by Courcelles and SilkTork , , . My view is that when initial proposed decisions are expanded like this, arbs and clerks should take care to ensure that any user facing increased or new sanctions are notified). I know this is something that kwami should have noticed himself, but it might have helped if clerks were willing to add notifications to the parties to a case when the proposed decision is posted, and for both arbs and clerks to notify users if new sanctions are posted in the middle of voting on a proposed decision, and also to be aware that one of the parties is conspicious by their absence from the talk page of the proposed decision? It is easy to say that this is just adding more work, but I think it would be reasonable to do this. Would it be possible to consider these points? ] (]) 19:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::], I am a Vector 2010 user; probably should've though to check the default skin! I don't see enough space to have it left-aligned while still keeping the other two sidebars. Thinking <del>out loud</del> <ins>in writing</ins>, do we need the dispute resolution sidebar there? It is not a current arbitration request. Thinking even more in print, I am wondering if WP:A/C can be BLAR'd to ], which has all of the information at WP:A/C and more. <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 03:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I find A/C a very helpful page to access ArbCom recent changes without having to load a whole noticeboard. Seemingly . Would there be some way to make ACOT's total width flexible? At the moment it looks like all the widths are hardcoded. Alternately, ] works. It's a little ugly with the DR template down there, but putting three sidebars together is gonna look a little ugly no matter what. Or as a third option, you could force all three boxen into a table. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, it was an idea. Happy to keep it around if people find it useful :){{pb}}Forcing all three into a table looks even worse on my screen. It forces ACOT to be super narrow. I think your proposed edit (moving the least relevant item to drop below) is the least bad option which does not involve {{User:Tamzin/The diaeresis|re|i|nventing}} the wheel. If someone wants to work on making ACOT's width flexible, I think that would be awesome, but with ] I am reluctant to sign up for doing that myself. Happy to let you do the honors of reinstating your edit; also happy to do it myself. <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 03:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@]: Idea just popped into my head the other night: Why not just redirect it to ]? <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{done|]}} BOLDly; if anyone has objections revert (and I waive ] for this particular edit). <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 06:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Parameters to set widths on pages, or arbitrary floats, inhibit display at mobile resolution. Setting width is a no-go from that perspective. Setting a different kind of float is possible in TemplateStyles and if that's pursued should be pursued there. ] (]) 04:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 06:44, 1 January 2025
Noticeboard
Clerks' Noticeboard (WP:AC/CN) Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
This noticeboard's primary purpose is to to attract the attention of the clerks to a particular matter by non-clerks. Non-clerks are welcome to comment on this page in the event that the clerks appear to have missed something.
Private mattersThe clerks may be contacted privately, in the event a matter could not be prudently addressed publicly (i.e., on this page), by composing an email to clerks-l
lists.wikimedia.org; only the clerk team and individual arbitrators have access to emails sent to that list.
A procedural reference for clerks (and arbitrators) is located here.
 Archives |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
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.
ARBPIA5 motion at ARCA
Refers to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Motion_5:_PIA5_Case.
For motion 5 (ARBPIA5) it states that there are 10 active arbs and since 1 has abstained, 5 is a majority. However, L235 (an inactive arb) has voted on it, so the majority needs to be altered to 6.
I'm unsure if that affects the numbers for any of the other motions (or indeed any other cases) but it clearly does for this one. Black Kite (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Marked as active on the one motion. L235, we'll assume you're not active on the other 6 motions unless you indicate otherwise or vote on them. SilverLocust 💬 20:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
WP:A/C alignment
The box at WP:A/C used to be on the left side of the page. There is a parameter used in {{ArbComOpenTasks}} called |acotalign=left, but that parameter seems to no longer do anything, and the box now floats way down bottom-right. I tried a few things to fix this but they didn't work. Complicating things, for whatever reason the box floats left in preview. Any ideas? -- Tamzin (they|xe) 06:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Tamzin, it looks fine on my screen? It appears that
|acotalign=was removed in 2012, so that parameter has been worthless for over a decade at this point. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)- @HouseBlaster: What skin are you using? I'm using Vector-22. Checking now, it does align left in Vector. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Tamzin, I am a Vector 2010 user; probably should've though to check the default skin! I don't see enough space to have it left-aligned while still keeping the other two sidebars. Thinking
out loudin writing, do we need the dispute resolution sidebar there? It is not a current arbitration request. Thinking even more in print, I am wondering if WP:A/C can be BLAR'd to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests, which has all of the information at WP:A/C and more. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)- I find A/C a very helpful page to access ArbCom recent changes without having to load a whole noticeboard. Seemingly many others do too. Would there be some way to make ACOT's total width flexible? At the moment it looks like all the widths are hardcoded. Alternately, this works. It's a little ugly with the DR template down there, but putting three sidebars together is gonna look a little ugly no matter what. Or as a third option, you could force all three boxen into a table. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it was an idea. Happy to keep it around if people find it useful :)Forcing all three into a table looks even worse on my screen. It forces ACOT to be super narrow. I think your proposed edit (moving the least relevant item to drop below) is the least bad option which does not involve reïnventing the wheel. If someone wants to work on making ACOT's width flexible, I think that would be awesome, but with current stuff I am reluctant to sign up for doing that myself. Happy to let you do the honors of reinstating your edit; also happy to do it myself. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- @HouseBlaster: Idea just popped into my head the other night: Why not just redirect it to Template:ArbComOpenTasks? -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 05:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Done BOLDly; if anyone has objections revert (and I waive the prohibition on reverting clerks in arbspace for this particular edit). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HouseBlaster: Idea just popped into my head the other night: Why not just redirect it to Template:ArbComOpenTasks? -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 05:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Parameters to set widths on pages, or arbitrary floats, inhibit display at mobile resolution. Setting width is a no-go from that perspective. Setting a different kind of float is possible in TemplateStyles and if that's pursued should be pursued there. Izno (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it was an idea. Happy to keep it around if people find it useful :)Forcing all three into a table looks even worse on my screen. It forces ACOT to be super narrow. I think your proposed edit (moving the least relevant item to drop below) is the least bad option which does not involve reïnventing the wheel. If someone wants to work on making ACOT's width flexible, I think that would be awesome, but with current stuff I am reluctant to sign up for doing that myself. Happy to let you do the honors of reinstating your edit; also happy to do it myself. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I find A/C a very helpful page to access ArbCom recent changes without having to load a whole noticeboard. Seemingly many others do too. Would there be some way to make ACOT's total width flexible? At the moment it looks like all the widths are hardcoded. Alternately, this works. It's a little ugly with the DR template down there, but putting three sidebars together is gonna look a little ugly no matter what. Or as a third option, you could force all three boxen into a table. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Tamzin, I am a Vector 2010 user; probably should've though to check the default skin! I don't see enough space to have it left-aligned while still keeping the other two sidebars. Thinking
- @HouseBlaster: What skin are you using? I'm using Vector-22. Checking now, it does align left in Vector. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)