Template talk:ArbComOpenTasks/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Adding to template

Before it's recent protection, I tried to add a section to this template to address Requests that have gone stale (not met the 4-vote threshold to open or reject). This version can be seen here. Since this template is a tool for communicating status of arbitrations, this seems like a natural extension of the template. There, unfortunately, is no way in the Arbitration policy to handle stale requests, so using this tool to communicate that need seems natural and desirable. I suppose the exact presentation of this information is not important, but I think it's valuable to have it here. -- Netoholic @ 15:32, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

Today the page was unprotected. I implemented a more expanded version of the change described above. It was again reverted, and the page re-protected, by User:Raul654. Still no discussion on this or any other Talk page, and no attempt to gather the opinions of other users on merit of this improvement. -- Netoholic @ 04:36, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

Leave this protected permanently. The arbitrators are all sysops and can edit it as they need without all this hassle from people who have decided that they know exactly what the arbcom ought to be doing. —No-One Jones ^(m) 05:37, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. →Raul654 05:50, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

The tradeoff, of course, is that nobody else can help keep this up-to-date. Whether that is worth the effort of wrangling with attempts to reinstate a format that was abandoned months ago is your choice. —No-One Jones ^(m) 07:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The previously "abandoned" version attempted to track changes as each vote changed - probably a bad way to go. But removing it also meant that long-standing requests are stagnant. Communication is never a bad thing. -- Netoholic @ 07:33, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

I think that this should not be protected; it is arcane (random vandals won't find it), obvious when someone changes it (so it won't be misleading), and, of course, easily revertable.

Also, Arbitrators are not de jure sysops, only de facto; what would we do were we to have a non-sysop member?

James F. (talk) 08:53, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Format

I tried a new format for this, which was reverted my Mav. His comment was that he didn't want to have to type that every time, but I really think it be very easy. After all, you can just copy an old line, and then change the name of the sub-page on five links. The benefit is that each listing shows all the related pages. It will be helpful to see when a talk page is created and also make the "Whatlinkshere" function work much better. Consider reverting back, or at the very least try it for a few days. -- Netoholic @ 03:05, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

5 links would be needed instead of one or two. The way it is now is easier to maintain. --mav 04:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

/Workshop rather than /Evidence ?

Recently this template was edited to replace the /Evidence link with a /Workshop link [1].

However, this leaves no link to the /Evidence page from the RfAr page (and the Workshop page itself has no link to /Evidence either). -- Curps 15:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little confused on the use of the /Workshop page.

• Is it for ArbCom use only or can any party edit it?
• Is it meant to replace the /Evidence page or supplement it?
• Should evidence be placed on both pages or just one?

I think the workshop is a good idea, I'd just like a little more info on how it should be used. Carbonite | Talk 15:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

We now have both Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/X and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/X/Workshop. And both are just blank templates; neither one reproduces the user comments from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration that were added during the voting to accept/reject process. Are we in the middle of a transition to a different way of handling the evidence-gathering phase? This needs to be cleared up. -- Curps 15:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Style changes

I made some minor style changes to the template. I indented the text for each header, then had each header get progressively darker for each stage of a case going through ArbCom (maybe that should be reversed, heh, sounds negative). Hopefully the indented text is OK even if the color changes aren't (something about text hugging a margin that closely just drives me nuts). Anyways, enjoy. —Locke Cole 09:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Recently closed - how recent?

How "recent" must a case be in order to be listed in the "recently closed" section? --TML1988 01:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Took the very words. Is this working to a rough number of days (2-3?), a certain number of most recent cases (1-2?), or some combination thereof? Personally I'd suggest leaving more/them longer, given the timescale of many cases, which tends to make their subsequent disappearance somewhat sudden-seeming. Say a week, as a rule of thumb. Alai 21:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I generally just remove one case from the list for every newly closed case. I'm sure other clerks do different things, however -- otherwise the number of cases there would be forever static. Johnleemk | Talk 21:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It varies a lot. For nearly two weeks this month there were no case closes, so the most recent closed case on the list at that time was really rather old. Now we're closing cases about one a day and so I'm happy just to list the most recent two cases. There is a link to the full list of closed cases in the "Recently closed" header. --Tony Sidaway 23:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)