| Revision as of 12:43, 6 November 2006 view sourceThatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 edits →Calculation of majority: rewrite← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:54, 6 November 2006 view source Thatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 edits updatesNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{shortcut|]}} | {{shortcut|]}} | ||
| ⚫ | {{ArbComOpenTasks}} | ||
| This page will be used to facilitate communication between clerks. | This page will be used to facilitate communication between clerks. | ||
| Archives: ] | Archives: ] | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| ⚫ | {{ArbComOpenTasks}} | ||
| == Conflict of interest == | == Conflict of interest == | ||
| 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. | 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. | ||
| Line 13: | Line 15: | ||
| == Procedures == | == Procedures == | ||
| A procedural reference for clerks (and Arbitrators) is ]. | A procedural reference for clerks (and Arbitrators) is ]. | ||
| ==Calculation of majority== | ==Calculation of majority== | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| '''Updating the majority''' The majority should be calculated when the case is opened, and updated when the case is listed for voting. After a case is opened for voting, do not update the number of active arbitrators if someone ''becomes'' active, as the arbitrator may not feel capable of casting an informed vote. However, if the arbitrator ''does'' cast a vote, then consider him or her active on the case and update the majority if necessary. If an arbitrator goes on the inactive list during voting, recalculate the majority unless the arbitrator has already voted. | '''Updating the majority''' The majority should be calculated when the case is opened, and updated when the case is listed for voting. After a case is opened for voting, do not update the number of active arbitrators if someone ''becomes'' active, as the arbitrator may not feel capable of casting an informed vote. However, if the arbitrator ''does'' cast a vote, then consider him or her active on the case and update the majority if necessary. If an arbitrator goes on the inactive list during voting, recalculate the majority unless the arbitrator has already voted. | ||
| :'' |
:''As of November 6, there are 9 active arbitrators (less any recusals) and the majority is 5'' | ||
| ===<font color="green">Active</font>=== | ===<font color="green">Active</font>=== | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
| Please report any problems with this procedure here. --] 05:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC) | Please report any problems with this procedure here. --] 05:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ==New template== | ==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: ]. | 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: ]. | ||
| Line 74: | Line 75: | ||
| 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) | 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 |
==Pending Actions== | ||
| :''Clerks and informal helpers, please coordinate your actions through this section, so that we don't have multiple clerks working on the same cases at the same time.'' | |||
| 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=== | ===To be opened=== | ||
| *The H. Elwood Gilliland case has reached 4 net votes to accept. However there is a pending community ban which will moot the case. Please do not open the case until I can confirm whether the parties consider the proposed community ban acceptable. ] 12:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Line 86: | Line 87: | ||
| ===To be closed=== | ===To be closed=== | ||
| :''Cases may be closed after after the fourth '''net''' vote to close, but generally wait at least 24 hours after the first motion to close. In cases where the arbitrators have disagreed and not all the findings or remedies have passed, wait at least 24 hours after the '''final''' close vote is cast to give other arbitrators a chance to raise objections.'' | |||
| *The Vivaldi case is nearing closure. Please sign here if you want to close it when it is ready. ] 12:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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.'' | ||
| ⚫ | ===Already closed=== | ||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| ===Other work=== | ===Other work=== | ||
Revision as of 12:54, 6 November 2006
Shortcut- ]
- 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 page will be used to facilitate communication between clerks.
Archives: 1
Conflict of interest
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.
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 here.
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.
Check for recent updates to the active list at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee, and check for arbitrators recused from the list. A majority is half the number of active arbitrators, rounded up to th enearest whole number, or plus one if the number of active arbs is an even number. For example, if there are 8 or 9 active arbitrators, the majority will be 5.
Updating the majority The majority should be calculated when the case is opened, and updated when the case is listed for voting. After a case is opened for voting, do not update the number of active arbitrators if someone becomes active, as the arbitrator may not feel capable of casting an informed vote. However, if the arbitrator does cast a vote, then consider him or her active on the case and update the majority if necessary. If an arbitrator goes on the inactive list during voting, recalculate the majority unless the arbitrator has already voted.
- As of November 6, there are 9 active arbitrators (less any recusals) and the majority is 5
Active
As of November 6, 2006
- Fred Bauder - talk - fredbaud at ctelco.net (wiki e-mail)
- Sean Barrett aka "The Epopt" - talk - sean at epoptic.org (wiki e-mail)
- JayJG - talk - wiki e-mail
- Matthew Brown aka "Morven" - talk - morven at gmail dot com (wiki e-mail)
- Charles Matthews - talk - charles dot r dot matthews at ntlworld dot com (wiki e-mail)
- Dmcdevit - talk - wiki e-mail
- Mark, aka Raul654 - talk - wiki e-mail
- Ben aka "Neutrality" - talk - wiki e-mail
- Kat Walsh aka "Mindspillage" - talk - mindspillage at gmail dot com (wiki e-mail)
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. --Tony Sidaway 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: Template:ArbComSize.
- Usage: {{subst:ArbComSize}} --~~~~
Do remember to sign when using this template. --Tony Sidaway 13:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Please trim your statement on Requests for arbitration
Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on Requests for arbitration. 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 {{User article ban arb}} for applying article bans. There are 3 arguments, like so:
- {{subst:User article ban arb|Jimbo Wales|one year|Jimbo}}
which makes
| Notice: Jimbo Wales is banned from editing this article. |
| The user specified has been banned by the Arbitration committee 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.
Posted by Thatcher131 03:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC) for the Arbitration committee. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jimbo. |
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. Thatcher131 03:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Pending Actions
- Clerks and informal helpers, please coordinate your actions through this section, so that we don't have multiple clerks working on the same cases at the same time.
To be opened
- The H. Elwood Gilliland case has reached 4 net votes to accept. However there is a pending community ban which will moot the case. Please do not open the case until I can confirm whether the parties consider the proposed community ban acceptable. Thatcher131 12:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Temporary injunctions
To be closed
- Cases may be closed after after the fourth net vote to close, but generally wait at least 24 hours after the first motion to close. In cases where the arbitrators have disagreed and not all the findings or remedies have passed, wait at least 24 hours after the final close vote is cast to give other arbitrators a chance to raise objections.
- The Vivaldi case is nearing closure. Please sign here if you want to close it when it is ready. Thatcher131 12:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
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.