| Revision as of 19:17, 4 November 2006 view sourceThatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 edits →Pending cases: nothing pending← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 05:57, 1 May 2024 view source Anachronist (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, IP block exemptions, Administrators67,335 edits Wrong namespace |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
#REDIRECT ] |
|
{{shortcut|]}} |
|
|
This page will be used to facilitate communication between clerks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Redirect category shell| |
|
Archives: ] |
|
|
|
{{R from merge}} |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
{{ArbComOpenTasks}} |
|
{{R to talk page}} |
|
|
{{R from subpage}} |
|
== Conflict of interest == |
|
|
|
{{R to subpage}} |
|
If a particular clerk has a serious conflict of interest regarding a user or a case it's probably a good idea if the clerk recuses from the case in favor of some other clerk. Conversely, the subject(s) of the case should understand that no clerk would be needed at all if the evidence to the case were presented in a clear and concise manner and that they should not unduly pressure a clerk to not do their tasks. |
|
|
|
}}<!-- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This page is obsolete and kept for historical purposes, please use the page above for new comments. --> |
|
In any case, no clerk should have anything to do with a case in which he or she is a participant, except to the extent that he or she participates as a participant. Clerks who wish to make a statement in a case, or provide evidence, must refrain from acting as a clerk with respect to that case. This does not prejudice his right to perform cosmetic refactoring of evidence and workshop pages, as is the right of any editor. In unclear situations, the Arbitration Committee should be consulted. |
|
|
|
|
|
A former Arbitrator acting as a clerk is not a "participant" in any case where he or she acted as an Arbitrator. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Procedures == |
|
|
A procedural reference for clerks (and Arbitrators) is ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Calculation of majority== |
|
|
In opening a case we have to determine the majority for the case. This number goes in a statement at the head of Proposed decision. |
|
|
|
|
|
Someone please fill in the gaps in my knowledge. I'll copy it to the procedure page when we have it down. |
|
|
|
|
|
Okay so majority is one more than half if even, round up half to next number if odd, so majority of 6 is 4, majority of 9 is 5, and so on. |
|
|
|
|
|
Number of arbitrators away: Get that from ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
Check for recusals. |
|
|
|
|
|
Now wasn't there something about only using the same numbers for the basis of majority, so count 12 as a quorum instead of 15? Or did I get that all wrong. In any case I've flubbed the calculaiton of the majority in the proposed decision page for ], and that needs to be fixed. --]|] 08:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:(Hoping not to be begone'd like James) But, though we mentioned it, keeping quorum at 12, it hasn't been changed yet. So, on this case, 1 recusal, 1 inactive, and that makes 7 majority. ]·] 09:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I officially returned today (and, in the same edit, officially switched Filiocht to "away" pending his return). As such, for any new cases that get opened, there are 14 active arbitrators and 1 inactive one, making 7 votes a majority. Cases that were opened prior to the new members being seated are a bit more complicated. ] 09:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Er, you mean 8? Unless there are recusals, 7 is half, 8 majority. :-) ]·] 09:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
] |
|
|
:::Yes, by mistake. ] 09:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I make the same mistake. I think it comes from doing too many sums when I was a lad. All those rounding errors mount up and they have to go somewhere! --]|] 11:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, and begone foul Spirit, etc. Sorry I forgot. --]|] 18:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Changes to the closing process: Implementation notes== |
|
|
I've added a new subsection "Implementation notes", to the Motion to Close section of the proposed decision. If you're clerking a case and it moved out of voting into motion to close, then it's time to enter into this section your understanding, in your own words, of how it will be implemented. Which proposals will be passed, and which remedies (of those that pass) will be conditional on the success or failure of other remedies. |
|
|
|
|
|
Other clerks, and arbitrators, may edit the section. Each arbitrator voting to close will have the opportunity to examine the implementation notes and alter them if necessary. |
|
|
|
|
|
At a minimum, there should be a summary of which items have passed (for instance, "all proposed items have passed by at least 7-0"). |
|
|
|
|
|
The implementation notes should ideally be written in enough detail as to make sense if copied to the announcement that the case is closed. |
|
|
|
|
|
Please report any problems with this procedure here. --] 05:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
==New template== |
|
|
Recent arbitration applications have become so ridiculously long that I've farmed three or four open applications off onto subpages. On more recent applications, where it's reasonable to ask participants to trim their statements, I've made a new template with which to ask them to do so: ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
: Usage: <nowiki>{{subst:ArbComSize}} --~~~~</nowiki> |
|
|
|
|
|
Do remember to sign when using this template. --] 13:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Please trim your statement on ]=== |
|
|
Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on ]. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Applying article bans == |
|
|
I created a new template {{tl|User article ban arb}} for applying article bans. There are 3 arguments, like so: |
|
|
:<nowiki>{{subst:User article ban arb|Jimbo Wales|one year|Jimbo}}</nowiki> |
|
|
which makes |
|
|
|
|
|
{| name="notice" class="messagebox" id="bizan standard-talk" style="background: #bee; border: 1px solid #666666; text-align: center; font-size: 100%;" |
|
|
| | '''Notice: ] is banned from editing this article.''' |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| style="text-align: left; border-top: 1px solid #666666; " | The user specified has been banned by the ] from editing this article for a period of one year. The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. At the end of the ban, any user may remove this notice. |
|
|
<sub>Posted by {{{4|] 03:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)}}} for the Arbitration committee. See ].</sub> |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
It could use a more felicitious name, and for more complicated decisions you may have to go back into the subst'd talk page and make manual adjustments, but its a start. ] 03:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Pending cases== |
|
|
|
|
|
This is intended as a temporary resource to help the new clerks to co-ordinate their work. Normally it's easy enough to track the state of cases once you get used to it. |
|
|
|
|
|
===To be opened=== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===Temporary injunctions=== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===To be closed=== |
|
|
|
|
|
Closes are closed twenty-four hours after the fourth ''net'' vote to close. This is to give any arbitrator time to object to the closure. At the time of writing the cases listed here have a net four close votes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===Already closed=== |
|
|
: Move cases here if you close them. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Other work=== |
|
|
Basically if these have responses from arbitrators and have been dead for a week they can be archived on the talk page of the case by an uninvolved clerk. |
|
|
|
|
|
Please also remember to patrol for arbitration applications that have been rejected. Currently, cases that are 10 days old with fewer than 4 ''net'' accept votes are considered rejected. |
|