Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:45, 19 March 2009

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

This noticeboard's primary purpose is to to attract the attention of the clerks to a particular matter by non-clerks. Non-clerks are welcome to comment on this page in the event that the clerks appear to have missed something.

The clerks may be contacted privately, in the event a matter could not be prudently addressed publicly (i.e., on this page), by composing an email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org; only the clerk team and individual arbitrators have access to emails sent to that list.

A procedural reference for clerks (and arbitrators) is located here.

Clerks and trainees, 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, and a mailing list, Clerks-l, are also available for private co-ordination and communication, although the mailing list is fairly low traffic.

Pending Requests

All work relating to pending requests on WP:RfAr

• The Request for general clarification can be archived; arbs who had comments to make have made them, and there seems to be no pending issues. — Coren  17:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Open Cases

All work relating to Arbitration cases already opened

Scientology

(od) Various editors are listed in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence#New evidence by Cirt who are likely to be mentioned shortly in Findings of Fact. They may not all be aware of this case. Could they be notified urgently please? — Roger Davies 08:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Could the list of editors in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence#SPAs please be notified that they are likely to mentioned in Findings of Fact? It is not necessary to notify editors who are already named parties. Thank you very much, — Roger Davies 12:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Active/inactive arbitrators

This list will be used to set the number of active Arbitrators and the case majority on cases as they open. As of 19 February 2009, there are 15 active Arbitrators, and the majority is therefore 8 for all new cases (that is, those accepted after the "as of" date). See WP:AC/C/P#Calculating the majority for help. The master list is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee#Current members.

Active (as of 6 Mar 2009):

1. Carcharoth
2. Casliber
3. Coren
4. FayssalF
5. FloNight
6. Jayvdb
7. Kirill Lokshin
8. Newyorkbrad
9. Risker
10. Rlevse
11. Roger Davies
12. Sam Blacketer
13. Stephen Bain
14. Vassyana
15. Wizardman

Away or inactive:

1. Cool Hand Luke (For one week)

Arbitrator announcements

Arbitrators, please note if you wish to declare yourself active or away/inactive, either generally or for specific cases. The clerks will update the relevant cases as needed. If you are returning, please indicate whether you wish to be: 1) Put back to active on all cases; 2) Left on inactive on all open cases, and only put to active on new cases; or 3) Left to set yourself to active on cases you wish (remember to update the majority on its /Proposed decision page).

FloNight's status

• Would a clerk mark me as inactive on Prem Rawat 2, Ayn Rand, Date delinking, and Scientology. I'm taking a break to catch up on some article work. Leave me active on West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria and MZMcBride (if they open). I'll let you all know when I'm ready to go active on all cases again. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the ACA template and proposed decision templates of the affected templates as requested. Gazimoff 09:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke

• CHL just declared himself inactive for about a week.--Tznkai (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

General discussion

RFAR/AE

Even though this closed over a week ago, people are still posting comments. Should we protect the page and put a more noticeable archival template? MBisanz 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Me included there. The stuff I posted was in a notepad file from before it closed, I'd forgotten to get around to placing it. I've no problem it being moved if it's deemed necessary, away (sad waste) or to the talk (two links would need reformatting). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Penwhale

Being extremely overwhelmed in real-life.. on top of a very stupid (and silly) speeding ticket that I'm going to court for (because I may potentially get my license suspended for a very annoying rule). Thought I'd offer an explanation. - Penwhale | 17:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Small fix to SemBubenny

FYI: I've editied SemBubenny to change numbering for "SemBubenny admonished and warned" from "1" to "1.4" to agree with the "Proposed decision" page. Paul August ☎ 14:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I was unaware that was the way it needed to be done. I think it makes more sense to number it "1" opposed to "1.4" as, there is no 1.3, 1.2, ect... Maybe we should change this? Tiptoety 20:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would favor a sane renumbering accompanied with a link to the actual proposed section— but that has the potential of being a headache for the clerks. — Coren  03:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There is already a link to the /proposed page on the main case page, as such any editor can click it and look for themselves. I guess skipping right to 1.4 without a 1.3, 1.2, and 1 does not make a lot of sense. Tiptoety 04:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Workshop guidance

I'm working on a draft at User:MBisanz/Draft for participants to better understand how to use the workshop page in cases. ANy improvements or comments are welcome. MBisanz 04:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Arbitration Statistics

FYI: I've made some changes to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Statistics:

1. All the "Arb activity" tables are now sortable (for example see: Arb activity (2009) — requests).
2. The "Cases" section now tracks each case's drafter (see: Cases involving 2009 arbs only) and Arb activity (2009) — cases).
3. The "Proposals" section now tracks the time order of each action (i.e. a support, oppose, or abstain) on each proposal. This is represented in the tables by appending to each "S", "O" and "A", a number indicating the order that each action occurred, (i.e 1 = first, 2 = second etc.). This allows for computing two new statistics for each arb, "firsts", which is the number of first actions -- generally indicative of being the drafter of the proposal -- and "AVR" (average vote rank), which is the average of the rank orders of an arb's actions on a proposal, following the first action (i.e. the average of the ranks > 1) -- giving an indicator of earlier versus later voting. So, for example for the five cases closed so far this year, encompassing 105 proposals, Coren with 38 "firsts" has apparently drafted about 36% of those 105 proposals, while Rlevse is on average the earliest voter with an AVR of 4.1 (see: Arb activity (2009) — case proposals).

Paul August ☎ 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)