Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard

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. An IRC channel, #wikipedia-en-arbcom-clerks, has been created. Contact Cbrown1023 (or Worby), Thatcher131 (Thatcher-wiki), mindspillage, Raul654, or Mackensen for access.

Cases should generally be opened 24 hours after the fourth net vote to accept.

• I've been appointed to the committee supervising the Board elections and have just been admonished against the fallacy of giving my home wiki higher priority than that. At present, I don't think this should affect my ability to do clerking (it will cut more into my admin or mainspace time), but if I need to have anything reassigned on short notice I'll ask for even more than the usual amount of collegiality and understanding. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 22:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks or helpers who have COI issues with a particular case and wish to abstain from clerical activities therein may indicate their recusal here.

• Newyorkbrad recused in Miskin and Badlydrawnjeff.
• Srikeit recused in Hkelkar 2.
• Picaroon recused in Miskin and Badlydrawnjeff.

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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Appeal from Koavf needs to be removed, because it has been ten days and has not passed, correct? I can't do it because I was involved in the discussion and prior events. Picaroon (Talk) 02:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is ongoing discussion about the appropriate procedure to be used. Let's leave it for now. If nothing happens tomorrow I will send a note to the arbitrators' mailing list asking for guidance. Newyorkbrad 02:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Normally I would remove after 10 days as stale, but this is somewhat unusual. I emailed the AC list yesterday asking whether there were 3 more arbs who would vote in favor, despite the procedural qualms, or would an arbitrator remove it. So far no reply. Thatcher131 11:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've written to the list as well. Still leaving it on WP:RfAr until further notice. Newyorkbrad 03:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move cases here if you close them.

As of May 31, 2007, there are 12 active arbitrators, so the majority is 7 for new cases

Active

• Blnguyen (active as of May 21; by his request, leave him inactive for cases opened previously; he will activate himself as he gets involved on a case-by-case basis)
• Charles Matthews
• Flcelloguy (inactive on a couple of older cases accepted when he was away, but active on cases accepted in May)
• FloNight (on active status despite a short wikibreak)
• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester (active as of May 19; reactivated on all pending cases at his request)
• Jpgordon
• Kirill Lokshin
• Mackensen
• Matthew Brown (Morven)
• SimonP
• Uninvited Company

Away/inactive

• Paul August (away until 16 June)
• Neutrality
• Raul654

I'm replacing this here:

Fred Bauder has wiped out my user and discussion page. I don't believe I am/was in violation of any Wikipedia rule or ArbCom ruling. Can the ArbCom please explain this action or if I am correct in my view, give me permission to restore my pages. Thanks! --Pete K 20:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted with a comment "So Email Them" - sorry, but this is not an issue for email or back-door politics. It needs to be visible. Please direct me to a visible page where this can be discussed in view of the community. Thanks! --Pete K 01:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to leave this up so discussion about this issue can take place. There is currently discussion on my talk page. I would like others to be involved. It would be nice if I didn't have to come back here and restore this every few minutes. It's a serious issue. Thanks! --Pete K 02:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave this note up here for a short time so that other clerks can see it and so you can see this response. However, I think the reason this was previously deleted is that as clerks we have no authority to deal with this matter. The clerks' responsibility to assist with maintaining the arbitration pages and perform certain tasks that are (hence the name) clerical. As clerks we have no authority to intepret decisions or overrule the decisions of any arbitrator.

If you would like to pursue this matter, if you send me or any active clerk an e-mail with your position (using the "e-mail this user" feature) I will forward it to all the arbitrators via their mailing list. That will be the end of my ability to assist you. Whether and how to respond to your request would be up to the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad 02:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Newyorkbrad. As a "noticeboard" it seems to me a legitimate place to put my request for help. I assume arbitrators, administrators and clerks view this information regularly. If there is a better place to bring this to the attention of the administrative unit of Wikipedia, please let me know and I'll gladly remove it from here and post it there. OK? Pete K 03:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we possibly have the Falun Gong link stay in the "Recently closed" section for as long as reasonably possible - a member of the Mediation Committee requested this (for some reason) on our mailing list, and I said I'd carry it on to you. I believe that there is discussion ongoing on arbcom-l about this, but I can't be sure. Cheers, Daniel 07:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]