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

message: I've performed the following change (shown in bold):
: 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 head clerk or the Arbitration Committee should be consulted.
Editors, whether participants or not, can reorganize evidence and workshop pages.  An editor should not be forbidden to carry out such cosmetic tasks simply because he is both a participant in the case and a clerk.  So if X is involved in a case and as a clerk cannot act as a clerk, this doesn't stop him, say, renumbering proposed findings of fact in the workshop, or changing links in an evidence page to correct diff links. Such editing should always be done with care, whoever does it. . --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as long as you remain aware that a recused clerk must have the same editing rights as he would have if he were not a clerk.  --Tony Sidaway 05:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s change to the confict of interest clause

message: placed on talk page since I am not a "official clerk" and it is unclear whether other people are allowed to post even comments on the main clerks page
:The new template looks nice but since it seems to linebreak after each usage (can't be used directly next to a previous one) so it's screwing up the currentasks template, I'm sure there's an easy way to fix it so it allows one to be placed next to another so that it works correctly but I don't know how. JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 23:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, Jdforrester's change to the arbcomopentasks template to put it into it's own column seems to work well to make it work. JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 23:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new template 

message: Are we expected to recuse from cases we're provoding evidence in? I've been trying to restrict myself to summarizing other's, or was there a Sekrit Cabal order to search for more?--Tznkai 07:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would certainly hope that any clerk would automatically recuse themselves in such a situation. Unfortunately it appears that Johnleemk is clerking a case in which he has presented evidence. I'd encourage The Mighty Clerks Office to find Another Clerk for that case. -Splashtalk 21:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. That is bad-looking. I passed up that case due to past conflicts with Ruy Lopez on the 2004 Election Controversy cesspools, so I assumed he would as well if he's presenting evidence. Have you tried leaving a note on his talk page asking him about this? Phil Sandifer 23:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting the feeling he's presenting evidence as part of his clerking, and not declaring it as such.--Tznkai 23:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He presented evidence before being named as a clerk. But again, why are we debating this point instead of taking the straightforward, good faith approach of asking him? Phil Sandifer 23:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thats just my confusion. I'll ask when he's back off vacation--Tznkai 23:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I just asked him, but his userpage indicates a lack of internet at present. I'm inclined to think also that the presentation of fresh evidence is not part of a clerks job; they're not detectives after all. (They can present fresh evidence of course, but should then recuse as a clerk.) -Splashtalk 23:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, the clarification of unclear evidence and spotty evidence seems an important part of the job. After all, the arbcom is not a game to be won by whoever is most adept at presenting evidence. If there's something massive that the evidence page is obscuring, part of the task of the clerks is to make it clear to the arbcom. Phil Sandifer 23:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say if you're presenting evidence you're involved in (as I am in KDRgibby) you should recuse, but thats me.--Tznkai 23:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. To my mind, our recusal standards are the same as the arbcom's, and certainly nobody would fault the arbcom for looking at something that wasn't on the evidence page. Phil Sandifer 00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd have to tread a little carefully. It seems different for an Arbitrator to go sleuthing after the Truth than for a clerk to do so: the clerk could finish up prosecuting the case when they weren't actually involved in the first place, as well as trying to clerk it. That doesn't apply to an Arbitrator in the same way. That said, if a clerk is patching up the evidence a little "oh, and look, there's this editor apologising over here", that'd be different. -Splashtalk 00:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest 

message: As a party to this case, I urgently request clerical help,  The case has not been properly opened: the request is still on the main RFAR page, and discussion is still going on there.  The participants have not been officially notified.  Material that belongs on the evidence page is being misfiled under FIndings of Fact on the workshop page.  --Tony Sidaway 11:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And lots and lots of cases struggled along just fine without clerks.  The presence of clerks will only add fuel to the fire.  Please show some restraint and let this stagger along on it's own.  There is nothing "urgent" about any action here.  brenneman{T}{L}  11:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll take a look as soon as I can. --causa sui talk 11:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have completed the opening (I think). Johnleemk | Talk 11:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway]]

message: Regarding , although there are 7 acceptance votes listed, that includes Mackensen, who has resigned from the arbcomm.  So for the moment I only see 6/12 acceptance votes.  Am I missing something?  Guettarda 00:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, any four votes is all that's needed to open a case. And I do believe that Mackensen's votes will stand, in any case, and aren't subtracted. If it isn't opened by tomorrow, I'll do it myself when I have the time. Dmcdevit·t 03:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agapetos angle 

message: Can someone intervene in this mess? Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV/Workshop. There has been no clerk appointed and -Ril-, who has a history of messing up AfDs by taking possession and refactoring to suit himself has already been moving submission to where he thinks they belong. Here he moves my submissions of principle into the 'facts section' because where I've put them 'breaks up' the flow of his case . The workship is becoming a mess. This problem user requires tight supervision.  --Doc ask? 23:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please can somone intervene. Once again -Ril- refactors and relegates a 'finding of principle' to the end of the facts section, because it interupts what he has written . Ril is taking WP:OWN of this workshop. --Doc ask? 18:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KJV 

message: I'm recused from this current application because I've recently blocked a person involved in the dispute (Leyasu).  Unfortunately Deathrocker and Leyasu are bickering a lot and Leyasu tells me that Deathrocker has interfered with his (Leyasu's) statement.  I'd appreciate it if some uninvolved could intervene and tidy things up a bit. --Tony Sidaway 18:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deathrocker

message: Is it just me or is there an unusual lack of cases to open and close? :D Cowman109Talk 19:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shhhhh. They'll hear you. Thatcher131 19:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like everyone filed last month to beat the rush. :) Newyorkbrad 20:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New cases 

message: It is my understanding that new arbs (like me), are presumed recused for all cases opened prior to January 1. However we may "unrecuse" ourselves by adding "voting" as I have done so here and Kirill Lokshin and FloNight have done here. And thus for example Blnguyen's explicit recusal here is unnecessary. Is that everyone else's understanding? What is the voting/active status of arbs whose terms ended January 1? Have all these considerations been correctly taken into account when calculating the number of "active" arbs and the corresponding "majority" required given on the Proposed decision pages? I think it might be helpful to actually list the "active" arbs for each case. By the way I think "voting" is a better term. My thanks to all the clerks for their excellent work.  Paul August ☎ 20:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All that should be on the proposed decision talk pages for the individual cases.  If you want to add yourself to a case, make a note on talk:proposed decision, or just vote (we'll get the hint), and someone will fix the list and check the math.  Listing voting and non-voting arbs on the talk page is something we could do routinely, although we haven't in the past (and in fact, I haven't adjusted yet for Dmcdevit's break). The general rule we follow when arbitrators become inactive and active is here. Thatcher131 20:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re "active" vs "voting"; most cases are closed with bare majorities, rather than wait for everyone to get on board.  "voting" might raise expectations among the groundlings. Thatcher131 20:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks Thatcher. Paul August ☎ 18:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some questions on Voting/active status, and a suggestion 

message: I would like to know what the clerks opinions are on this edit. Paul August ☎ 21:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My non-clerk opinion is that people cannot pick and choose whether they are a party; if they're involved, and someone wants their behaviour arbitrated, and AC accepts it, then they're a party. Daniel.Bryant 21:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion? 

message: See: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Mistake with regard to "Move of Józef Łukaszewicz" request. Paul August ☎ 21:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A simple case of edit conflicts not working when they should, no? Daniel Bryant 21:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's what it looked like to me, too. Newyorkbrad 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes apparently so (but mathematicians never like to take things for granted, see User talk:Paul August#Joke time). Still watching me like a hawk is probably wise, you never know when dementia might set in. Paul August ☎ 22:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparently you have to watch me like a hawk 

message: Maybe it's just me, but the BDJ case had one part that gave me a chuckle:
=====Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned.=====
1.2) badlydrawnjeff is cautioned.
:Comment by Arbitrators:
::...about what? Excessive typing? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put me down as firmly opposed to the precedent that excessive typing is sanctionable. :) Newyorkbrad 15:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dug this out... 

message: 1.2) badlydrawnjeff is cautioned.
:Comment by Arbitrators:
::...about what? Excessive typing? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put me down as firmly opposed to the precedent that excessive typing is sanctionable. :) Newyorkbrad 15:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned.

message: Normally I'd chat to David Mestel (who has clerked this arbitration) about this, but he's apparently away now.  I did what I thought was a cosmetic edit on the above page in the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration, but it's been reverted by Violetriga.  Oops! Sorry, I should have left it to the professionals.
Since David is away and it certainly looks as if we have at least 5-1 and probably 6-1 to close, would someone check with the arbitrators to see if they're finished?  --Tony Sidaway 16:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe David is back now.  Why don't you post to his talk just in case he doesn't see this. Newyorkbrad 16:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision]]

message: Could a clerk view my recommendations at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli/Evidence and, if appropriate, correct them?  I'm not entirely familiar with the Arbitration process...  Thanks, Iamunknown 16:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will take a look. Picaroon (t) 21:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  :)  --Iamunknown 00:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli/Evidence 

message: Over time the arbitration page has become a little cluttered, much like the conduct RFCs that some editors may take it for.   A particularly unhelpful aspect of this is the insertion of ridiculously longwinded peacock terms ("mostly formerly almost uninvolved" and the like) which make the statements more difficult to follow and the proceedings almost impossible to take seriously.  As my recent edits to remove this nonsense from section headings on the page have proven unexpectedly controversial, I would like to ask the clerks to consider doing this.
Of course the involved or uninvolved status of an editor is still important (originally only comments by involved editors were made on the page, but that was long ago), but perhaps this would be best done by having a separate section for editors who consider themselves uninvolved but still have an informative comment to make.  --Tony Sidaway 18:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I agree with you here, Tony (btw, I'm not a Clerk :) I've helped out at the Arbitration process recently, and this is one thing that I've noticed: it seems unnecessary. I've seen everything, from "Statement by X" to "Short statement by the peripherally-involved User:X", and it does get a little beyond a joke. If we could, for example, have a level-3 header titled "Statements", and then immediately following the party and uninvolved-editors' posts, each headed with a level-4 titled "Example". That would make thing way easier... perhaps the official Clerks could look at this, and then we could implement it into the RfArb case template, pending any opposition? Anthøny 19:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm.  In all honesty, I'd prefer that modification to statements be kept to an absolute minimum; certainly, cosmetic reasons don't seem like a sufficient cause for it. Kirill 22:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not toning down abnormal section headers will just lead other people to go overboard in their headers by causing them to think it's acceptable. I think we should limit them to "Statement by X", "Statement by uninvolved X", and the previous two with "Comment" substituted for "Statement". Trying to be funny with your section headers, or adding your signature, strike me as useless and distracting. What are other headers that would really be of any use at all besides those four? Picaroon (t) 03:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited section headers from time to time to adhere to the format. I suggest that we edit only to remove seriously distracting or overlong (semi-parodic) headers and leave the rest alone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That makes sense. --Tony Sidaway 12:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peacocking in section headings

message: Please see this notice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard about an apparently missing 90-day ban in the Privatemusings case, closed today by User:AGK.
User:Mercury spotted the apparent error, and has altered the final decision and blocked.  To me it seems to be in order, but please check it. --Tony Sidaway 17:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings|''Privatemusings'']], ban missing

message: I am willing to help maintain WP:RFArb. -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Willing to Help 

message: Clerks working on cases involving unduly obstreporous participants may find solace in this principle from a recently decided case, and have occasion to cite it from time to time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One assumes Brad meant to link to here? If so, that is indeed comforting :) Anthøny 19:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. The final version is even nicer. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Case participant behavior

message: Does it need closing/archiving? Orderinchaos 04:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done before I even saw this.  — Rlevse • Talk •  13:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alice case 

message: I noticed that this statement here on the noticeboard: "This list will be used to set the number of active Arbitrators and the case majority on cases as they open. As of January 25, 2008, there are 12 active Arbitrators, so the majority is 7 for new cases (that is, those accepted after the "as of" date)."  I think this needs a tweak, as the list below it has 13 arbitrators.  Either the notice or the list must have a problem that someone might like to fix. :) Jay*Jay (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks for catching. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Inconsistency 

message: There is an unblock request by Mantanmoreland.  I have suggested a modification of the request that would make it sit better with the community, I think.  It might help if an arbitrator or clerk attended to that unblock request, as there would be less likelihood of wheel warring. Jehochman  Talk 13:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mantanmoreland: Non-clerking discussion moved here from main page

message: I think this page could stand some archiving by one of the Clerks. Discussions of permanent reference value should be archived, which those of fleeting relevance long past can simply be deleted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving