Template talk:Casenav

Switching arbs during case

I love this template. It really helps a lot with navigation. The only drawback was that the drafting arb just switched during a case, and I had to update 8 pages. Can parameters be sub-templated to allow easier updating when clerks and arbs change during a case? hmwith☮ 15:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

but what about Safari?

{{editprotected}}

• -moz-border-radius: 1em;

should be changed to:

• border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em;

in order to support any browser that supports the straight CSS3 syntax (currently none;), Firefox and other Gecko-based browsers, and Safari and Chrome (webkit-based). At some point -o- might be supported by Opera, but it's not currently. See {{round corners}} for moar glam you could add. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done (X! · talk)  · @627  ·  14:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 May 2012

Change "Decision posted" in second line section to "Proposed decision" to be consistent with T:AC

Nobody Ent 13:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be best to bring this up to the Arbs, and let them change it if they want it changed. Anomie⚔ 04:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Finally!. Nobody Ent 00:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Word missing

There's a verb missing from this line: "Only items for which an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision." I'm guessing it should say "Only items for which an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators vote will pass into the final decision." or (deleting "for") "Only items which an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators support will pass into the final decision." I request that someone add the missing word. Cheers, -sche (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted. How about using the passive tense? Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@-sche and MSGJ: Well spotted indeed, and thanks both for your assistance. AGK [•] 22:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Template name

I propose moving this template to a clear English title such as Template:Arbitration case navigation. The current name will still work as a redirect. Any comments? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You're free to suggest this, but it's probably best to leave this to the arbs and clerks to decide. --Rschen7754 08:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with this statement. The arbitration committee do not own this template, and procedures follow any other page in the template namespace. Do you have any comments on the merit of the proposal? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Decent idea, really. The current name is non-specific and could be confused with templates with a main-space purpose. Courcelles 19:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a rename wouldn't hurt, but the thing about not owning templates is silly. It is a very specific template, for a very specific purpose. What else would it be used for? Carcharoth (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

"Owning" may be the wrong verb to use as it not really analogous to WP:OWN which relates to articles. However I disagree strongly with the idea that a template related to arbitration should not be changed without permission of the arbitration committee. Although this template is only used on arbitration pages, it is actually used by anyone in the community who has read an arbitration case page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

@MSGJ: This does not strike me as a good proposal, for a number of reasons:

• Casenav is an extremely complicated template, written by me and Xeno over a number of months. Moving it would require cleaning up hundreds of instances of the template and tens of documentation pages. Due to the fact that only clerks and arbitrators are familiar with the template, it would therefore have to be one of us who move the template and do the necessary clean-up. That doesn't strike me as a good use of our time.
• Templates are named with brevity, not clarity, in mind. For example, who'd guess what {{!xt}} does unless they use it?
• The template's title is actually already clear enough. Any sensible person who looks at it in the edit window will know that, on an arbitration case, the case nav template is shorthand for case navigation.

Also, academically speaking, this template basically is in a sense "owned by the Arbitration Committee". The convention on Wikipedia since the committee's creation, many years ago, is that pages created as part of its process are ultimately maintained – and controlled – by the committee or its clerks, and cannot be edited without the go-ahead from the people the template is designed to assist in doing their job. None of this, practically speaking, is to say that we will not give earnest consideration to good-faith proposals from sensible users like yourself; but it does mean that – probably for good reason – templates created for, and used only by, the committee are also within our jurisdiction. However, I hope my substantive points above demonstrate that we are giving consideration to your proposal :-). AGK [•] 22:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I echo AGK's opinion, with a few additional points: I suspect that Hersfold's bots would break if this change was made. I've seen too many move proposals like this of established templates, with little regard to relevant bot owners and to the people who would have to do the work for such a conversion, and with few tangible benefits (see the Template:Article history move, which resulted in the loss of Gimmeetoo). --Rschen7754 00:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Editrequest

Please add |date=February 2013 to the {{Deprecated template}} part in the code of Template:Casenav. Debresser (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: There isn't a "{{Deprecated template}} part" in {{casenav}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. It is {{RFARcasenav}}, the talkpage of which redirects here. Debresser (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, that's possible: but why February not December? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The deprecation was done February 13, 2013. Debresser (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Debresser (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Small bug when there are multiple clerks or arbitrators

If you go to e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Evidence (today I learned that "tree shaping" exists, wow; and it's contentious enough there was an arbitration case about it, double wow), you will notice that when there is more than one case clerk or drafting arbitrator, the final closing parenthesis of the second person's parenthetical "(Talk)" link is not as small as the rest of the link. I.e., it looks like this:

Case clerks: Salvio giuliano (Talk) & Dougweller (Talk)

-sche (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The solution seems to be to change the template's three instances of </small>) to )</small>. -sche (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Done There were three cases. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! -sche (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change/fix

The template supports a parameter "case name". However the implementation is incomplete, presumably because the template grew, rather than was designed. This means that shortcut, schedule and staff are not working with the "case name" parameter.

I have implemented a fix in the {{Casenav/sandbox}}, illustrated here (you may need to scroll down):

Existing version

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Sandbox version

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

If there are no objections I will request this change be implemented.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC).

Per above. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC).

 Done SiBr₄ (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

Redux

The above change was implemented and reverted as "box now renders inconsistently". I have asked the reverting editor, Village Pump (Technical) and the arbitration Clerks for help in identifying the issue (i.e. what renders inconsistently, and in what circumstances?), with no success to date. It has been suggested I ask here too, so if anyone has any clews please ping me. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC).

I have posted some comments on User talk:AGK which I hope will help explain why his actions have been sub-optimal so far. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Sub-optimal? I suspect (or hope) you are not serious. AGK [•] 13:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I am serious. You are being obstructive rather than helping to improve the template. Your use of protection, seemingly to protect your version of this template, is unbecoming. If you oppose the change, then revert and explain exactly what is wrong with the change, but to use protection to enforce your version is inappropriate. And to revert on the principle that the edit wasn't made by clerk is downright wrong. (I suggest you sound out some other arbitrators on this.) Finally if, as I suspect, these actions are partly due to your previous interactions with the OP, then this is slightly more understandable, but I ask you to put this aside for the time being and collaborate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The jist is that the box that displays in some use cases does not look the same as the other ones; you have coded it poorly. Please find a clerk, explain what you need fixed, and they will do it for you. AGK [•] 13:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

WHICH use cases. Clerks are not (necessarily) template coders, it certainly isn't part of their role. Your response fails to make sense on several levels, and is curt, bordering on downright rude. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC).

Indeed, more than a gist is needed. Do you have an actual example of it not working? Perhaps Technical 13 would be happy to help with any debugging. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Of course, as always. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Note; This has been raised in four places

1. with the technical community who have not identified any problem
2. [the reverting editor (AGK)] (blanked without answering)
3. with the clerkes who batted it back to AGK
4. and here, both as the initial request for comments on the 4th,(no complaints) and this section on the 20th, with only the fairly content free response from AGK that reiterates the edit summary.

It would seem to me that if the "box renders inconsistently" it would be a moments work to say "on page X compared with page Y" (and preferably say which box) instead of creating unnecessary disruption. Failure to use the D of WP:BRD means that despite WP:AGF I have to make a working assumption that there is in fact no inconsistent rendering, and resubmit the correction to the template. Of course if anyone does discern a significant issue, either before are after the changes are live, please feel free to stop the process or revert the changes, and please let me know.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC).

Correction for parameter case name, as described in previous section.

Note: code is in Template:Casenav/sandbox, which includes the edit proposed by Technical13 below. For just this change (and the spelling correction "routing" => "routine") see Template:Casenav/sandbox2.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC).

 Done, let me know if you see any problems. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

PS, any chance someone could make a start with this template's documentation? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 November 2014

Please replace:

<noinclude>{{Ivory messagebox
|1=<span class="plainlinks">'''Did you mean to go to [[Template:Casenav/data|Template:Casenav<u>/data</u>]] ([{{fullurl:Template:Casenav/data|action=edit}} edit])''' or [[Template:ArbComOpenTasks]]?

Edits to this template are rarely required during routing clerking duties, so you may be in the wrong place. If you've created a shortcut for a case (e.g. [[WP:ARBPIA]] for [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles]]) and wish for it to be automatically displayed in the case's casenav box, you are looking for [[Template:Casenav/shortcut]].</span>
|bg=salmon
|border=black
}}</noinclude>

with:

<noinclude>{{#if:{{REVISIONID}}|{{#ifeq:{{REVISIONID}}|0||{{Editnotices/Page/Template:Casenav}}}}}}
</noinclude>

This is so that the template will have cleaner code and it will make the "Preview" more useful to look at without something that isn't included clouding the example display. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Should it be "routin[e] clerking duties" either in the template or editnotice? "Routing" doesn't make much sense here (atleast for a non-native speaker). GermanJoe (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This seems eminently sensible. And yes, it should of course be "routine". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Quick fixed the spelling, and will do the code improvement soonish, if nobody else objects. GermanJoe (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.

On second thought, it might be better to achieve consensus on all open points first, especially on the previous change regarding additional case details in the box. As the template is currently only "template editor" protected, changes can be done by interested editors on their own, ideally after a constructive consensus is found. GermanJoe (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC) GermanJoe (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

GermanJoe, this page is template protected and I am not in the  Template editor usergroup. I'm only allowed to edit "edit notice" pages because I'm a member of the

Account creator usergroup. This request has been sitting here for three days unopposed, and I have no problem with it sitting a few more if you prefer to see if there is any objection. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I see, the template editor-category on your userpage got me confused then, without having the background info - sorry for the misunderstanding. I'd still suggest to finish all discussions first, including the bigger one about box content changes above. It's easier to do all in one step and avoids potential back and forth editing. If everything is clear and in the sandbox as "final" version, the sandbox version can simply be activated after a last test (the proposed minor improvement isn't vital at the moment either way). GermanJoe (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Joe, just out of curiosity, are you unsure about moving the editnotice to the editnotice page n(per this request) or are you unsure about the new edit links (where the precedent is set by the already existing one for the first page) and the underlining? If it is the later, I have no problem with reverting the formatting and new edit links and start a proper discussion about them on the talk page of the editnotice itself once the change requested here (to use the editnotice instead of putting the editnotice directly on the template) is carried out. Thanks if you can clarify that. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with this minor change as such - from a technical point of view, but I am no end user of this template. It doesn't hurt to keep this open a while longer, so editors more familiar with arbcom proceedings have a chance to comment on this proposal. GermanJoe (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've made the change. I don't understand the purpose of the REVISIONID stuff. Now it's an edit notice, why do we need it on the template at all? (If you think it's important I'll put it back.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Martin, the purpose of the REVISIONID was to make sure that the content of the editnotice only displayed once when the page was being worked on (&action=edit) and to hide it from the preview section (would still be in proper section at top of the page) while making changes. I have no idea why it the editnotice was put directly on the template in the first place except to possibly prevent attempts to edit the template (preemptive strike) that weren't needed and save editors time. I didn't feel it was appropriate to have it completely removed from the template in favor of the edit notice (which means it is only visible while editing) without a discussion and input from AGK who added it to the template in this change on 2012-02-21. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  I don't particularly mind either way, but I still don't understand your explanation. To me "when the page was being worked on (&action=edit)" means that you are editing the template, so the editnotice will display anyway. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Just to be clear, I support it not needing to be in the template itself. Yes, the editnotice will display when editing, the point of the REVISIONID stuff is to make the editnotice appear on the template page only when not editing the template. I suppose AGK may have added it in this method to save clerks the trouble of clicking to edit this page when there is nothing here for them to edit and the logic behind adding the first edit link in the editnotice may have been to make it so that they could one click from here to the proper place to make their edit (my minor modification to the edit notice to add edit links for all of the possible "places to edit" certainly centralizes this idea). This is all speculation of course without input from AGK. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Proceed how you think best here – no need at this time to wait for my input (because I am too busy to do this discussion justice). I trust in you to make changes that do not make the clerks' job more difficult. AGK [•] 06:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 December 2014

In the second line "Proposed decision posted" should be "Proposed decision posts" or "Proposed decision to be posted" to bring the tense in line with the other information listed. BMK (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done, renamed to "Proposed decision to be posted" but it can be something else if you prefer. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No, that's good, thanks. BMK (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Changing the header to an mbox

MSGJ changed this template to an mbox a couple days ago. I reverted, unsure if they meant to change the appearance, and he responded to my talk page message saying that yes, they intended on changing the template to standardize it with other Wikipedia header templates. I'd like to discuss that change. These are my personal views, but the new mbox squashes the box (on the horizontal axis) quite a bit, causing many more runs onto new lines; e.g. try previewing the template on WP:ARBGMO. The ivory background is also useful for making the template stand out from other boxes. I suppose a lot of my hesitance comes from sentimentalism, but there's also a distinct tinge of "if it's not broken, don't fix it". I understand the urge to standardize the template, but the current design is more useful, in my personal opinion. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting and discussing. I will tackle what I see as the more substantive of your reasons first: the squashing effect due to 80% width. This is the standard width for all messageboxes on Wikipedia. I did test the change on quite a few arbcom cases and didn't see anything concerning. I will do some further testing (including on WP:ARBGMO) and report back. Regarding the desire for this template to "stand out from other boxes", I understand that but imagine what it would look like if templates styles were not standardised and everyone wanted their favourite template to stand out from the others? (Something like this I suppose.) In this case I feel the standard colors on talk and subject spaces are particularly useful on Arbcom cases as they reinforce distinction between the namespaces. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Some tests on /testcases. When there are target dates included, I agree the additional width is useful. When there are no target dates, the extra space is not needed and the 80% looks better. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: I just shortened the dates now I think the casenav is looking fine even at 80%. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I'll respond to the rest tomorrow, just noting that the text still wraps for me, even with shortened dates. I'm using Chrome fullscreen on a MacBook Air. (Ignore the yellow and blue highlighting; I have scripts that highlight paragraphs with my username linked and highlight in blue administrators' links.) See:

Thanks for helping with this. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes I just tried my computer at work and saw the same thing. How about taking the shortcut outside of the box? Have a look again please ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Any more comments on this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• @MSGJ: Hi, sorry. I've not received any comments by arbs/clerks. The dates no longer wrap with the shortcut box taken out. I do understand the desire to standardize the notice boxes, but casenav is meant to be a header, a background, not a notice; it's not a maintenance tag, which are (meant to be) temporary and may be removed when the underlying problem/discussion is resolved. We do occasionally put notices on case pages as well (special rules, for example), and those are the ones that should recieve attention, not casenav. As another example, the Sitenotice clearly is never a "standardized" width; it's always 100% wide. See, e.g., Special:Permalink/669390461. However, I'm willing to compromise. I'd like to keep the box at 100% width, but I don't have strong objections to changing the color. Does that sound good to you?

Thanks for your patience and your work here. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Just one more attempt to convince you about the width. Consistency really is a good idea. Look at this page with the other two mboxes above this template, and this one with the mbox below it. On its own I agree the full width looks okay, but doesn't it jar when adjacent to other notices? And none of these are meant to be "temporary" are they? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Sorry for my delays in responding. For the future, please feel free to ping me; I don't have a good way of managing my watchlist. One more thing where I try to convince you to keep it full width: the notice under the main casenav template at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others seems clearly designed to fit under the casenav template, and fits very well into the full-width. Most of our notices don't consider the fact that included in the casenav template is a baked-in T:ACOT; I can't think of a way to place notices beside that that aren't full-width. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Frankly the whole thing is a mess and needs more than just resolving the width of this template. Just take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence, in particular the size and variety of different boxes at the top of that page! Template:ArbCom navigation could possibly be turned into a navbox at the bottom of the page. As usual on Wikipedia, boxes are added and adjusted by various editors with little consideration of the whole, so you get an illogical jumble which never would have happened if you'd designed it from scratch. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggested improvement

Currently, data relating to open requests is maintained at Template:Casenav/data. It seems when cases are closed, the template calls are then hard-coded with the required parameters, and the data is deleted from Template:Casenav/data (presumably to prevent that page becoming too large). This seems far from the simplest solution. Why don't you keep all data relating to a particular request in a subpage of this template, e.g. Template:Casenav/Arbitration enforcement. This can remain there perpetually, so there will no need to update the template when closing cases. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I believe the current arrangement was created for ease of clerking, specifically for when arbs went (in)active and lists/majorities had to be updated. It probably would be easier to keep it on a case subpage, though. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I may knock some code up in the sandbox to see if this can be implemented easily. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Recommend protection

Since the parent template invoking this is protected, recommend that this be also. Anybody could inject "funny stuff" in the Arbcom headers right now. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bri: Are you referring to Template:Casenav/data? If so, I can ask for protection at RFPP Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, yes Template:Casenav/data is unprotected (I didn't realize it sent me here for its talkpage). But I don't have permissions to change protection levels. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bri: Yup, I belatedly realized that. You might want to get on that :) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Looks like all clerks except Cameron11598 (and Kharkiv07, should he return) have TE. Don't know about the Kharkiv, but don't think Cameron meets the TE requirements. Not a big deal, perhaps, but something to be aware of. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: We traditionally grant TE and MMS to all clerks – TE is also necessary to create edit notices and edit several other ArbCom templates, and MMS is needed for notifications. We just haven't gotten around to that for Cameron. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Kevin – I did try. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 May 2019

User:Jonesey95 and anyone else interested: This template has two <p> tags missing corresponding end tags. The precise placement of said closing tags is left as an exercise for the reader. See, for example, Template:Casenav/testcases, which has a missing end tag for <p> resulting from this template. — Anomalocaris (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Jonesey95: Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 March 2020

In {{RFARcasenav}}, The last two <small> tags are each closed with two </small> tags, each extra causing a stripped tag lint error. In each case, please remove the extra </small> tag, you figure out which one is extra. Xeno, you put them there in your first edit of the template; AGK and Redrose64, you have also edited the template. — Anomalocaris (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 October 2020

I nominated Template:RFARcasenav for discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 22. Please add the TfD notice to the page. ({{subst:TfD}} if done today, otherwise you'll have to change the date). --Trialpears (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion has been closed, leaving it to arbitration clerks. -- Luk ^talk 20:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 January 2021

Given that not all the arbitrators use he/him or she/her pronouns, please replace Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after his or her time-stamped signature. with Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature.. Thanks. GreenComputer (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

This is Template:Casenav/PD, but this template is in arbspace, so this is for a clerk. L235 thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done CThomas³ (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

preliminary statements

Since preliminary statements are now going to a /Preliminary statements page, that should be added to the nav links. Thanks. 2602:243:2007:9990:FC12:23ED:462:65F4 (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Please expand on this request and provide any relevant link? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The template expands to a navigation box containing links "Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)". I'm requesting additional links, "Preliminary statements (talk)" to be added between "Main case page" and "Evidence". It would work the same way as the others, expanding to the subpages "/Preliminary statements" in the case and talk pages for the case in question, similar to how the other links expand. Example: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan_3/Preliminary_statements. There is not such a link in the template now because giving the preliminary statements their own page is a fairly new practice. 2602:243:2007:9990:FC12:23ED:462:65F4 (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Is this case a one-off, or is this the new process for cases going forward? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

You would have to ask arbcom that, but it's at least a two-off. I didn't check more cases than the two most recent. I think each incoming arbcom tends to adjust these sorts of procedures, so this may have started in January. The preliminary statements have been handled in a few different other ways in the past. 2602:243:2007:9990:FC12:23ED:462:65F4 (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Well I thought you might have asked arbcom before requesting this! Anyway I have added a link which will only display if the page actually exists. Is a link to the talk page needed? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

No I only inferred the practice from noticing the pages. I see that the Azerbaijan page that I linked has no talk page, but in the ongoing WW2 case, the preliminary statements talk page redirects to the main case page's talk page. If you think it is worthwhile, I could ask at WT:ACN for clarification. Alternatively, if you can make a talk page link that only appears in the cases where the talk page exists, that would handle it too. Or just always have it, since it would look weird for all but one of the talk page links to be there. Thanks ;). 2602:243:2007:9990:FC12:23ED:462:65F4 (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! 2602:243:2007:9990:FC12:23ED:462:65F4 (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

/shortcut cleanup

I would normally be WP:BOLD and just do it, but I'm aware that ArbCom and its clerks don't like anyone substantively touching templates that pertain to cases.

ArbCom cases have WP:ARBFOO shortcuts; this format is meaninginfully clear, predictable, and also avoids new cases using up WP:FOO strings that might be more appropriate for something else at some point.

All of them are already shortcutted this way in Template:Casenav/shortcut except three, and I ask that those pointless outliers be changed to match the rest, as follows:

|Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling=WP:ARBAESH
|Eastern European mailing list=WP:ARBEEML
|Antisemitism in Poland=WP:ARBAPL

All of those WP:ARBFOO shortcuts already work (two for a long time, one recently created because it had been skipped for some reason).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 21 March 2024

Description of suggested change:

In the phrase "Public evidence is preferred whenever possible, private evidence is allowed", the comma should become a semicolon.

Diff: Not sure which transcluded component contains the given text, but the nature of the change is such that testing probably isn’t required, unless there is something critically buggy with the backend engine. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I considered calling in the superclerk for such a major edit. SilverLocust 💬 18:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)