Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This could include injunctions and motions made on the WP:RFAr page. Looks good. Dmcdevit·t 09:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I notice that there are some pages which record paroles and probations that are not being kept up. Would it be appropriate to add those to the list of closing actions? -Will Beback 05:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I see they were commented out, so that their status can be ascertained. Those lists have not been deleted by the community. If they are not used than other simialr lists need to be created. Please comment here. Thanks, -Will Beback 09:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe some people think those lists need to be maintained, but I'm not in favor of having clerk responsibilities increased by community fiat. Closing a case is rather painful and after closing several I don't think I've ever gotten everything right on the first try. I don't mean to be snarky, but those people who want those pages maintained might consider maintaining them. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The best place to go to see paroles and probations and bans is WP:RFAR/AER. These are kept up to date. WP:RfAR/closed also gives a brief summary of each case, with all remedies (at least of recent cases) and the most significant participants. --Tony Sidaway 19:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto the other clerks. Before creating a new process, we must ascertain if there exists a need for said process. Considering that the pages linked to had not been actively used in ages, I thought their status (whether they're deprecated, etc.) needed clarification -- and anyhow, as Ryan said, it's rather hard to close cases already. It's probably simpler to go to AER or the closed cases list, since most cases end up with some sort of parole anyhow. Johnleemk | Talk 14:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

We should either use the pages or delete them. I'd be willing to maintina them, at least so far as updating them to the present. The reason I brought this up is the case of User:JarlaxleArtemis, whose probation was not recorded anywhere. Somewhere we need to record this info. I'm sorry if it is onerous. Let's find the easiest way to keep track of this info, and get rid of pages (or sections) that aren't used. -Will Beback 20:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you to the extent that the case records probably need to be rationalized. What I, and I think the other clerks, would object to is simply adding these pages to the list of those that need to be updated with each case close.

I wonder if you'd like to take a look at WP:RfAR/closed and see if you could bring that up to date. It is supposed to list all remedies and the parties they apply to. I think we'd end up with a maintainable clerical procedure and a ready and reliable source of information about bans, mentorships, probations and paroles of all kinds mandated directly by the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 20:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That all sounds good, and I am willing to contribute some hours towards making the RfAR listing complete. But the problem still remains there are also community bans, paroles, and probations (at least theoretically). User:JarlaxleArtemis's case is odd because he consented to return under a parole that was not imposed on him by an ArbCom decision. Perhaps I'm extrapolating too much from an unusual case. Even so I we need to allow for the recording of non-ArbCom measures either in the same place or in a closely-parallel article. -Will Beback 09:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

I had a question about ArbCom case categorization. It looks like originally, every case went into Category:Wikipedia Arbitration cases. However, over the last few months, this appears to have gotten more haphazard, and some cases are being listed, while others aren't. In order to avoid this problem, I recommend that the basic case template include the category listing. Anyone have thoughts on the matter? --Elonka 22:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)