This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) at 14:13, 30 April 2009 (→Clerk request re WP:ARBMAC2: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Noticeboard

Clerks' Noticeboard

• 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.

Private matters

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.

Procedures

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

Open Cases

All work relating to Arbitration cases already opened

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 03:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC), there are 16 active Arbitrators, and the majority is therefore 9 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 17 Apr 2009):

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

Away or inactive:

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).

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop

Really high drama going on over here, some more eyes are needed.--Tznkai (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this being my first case & not having learned much yet, any number of eyes would be appreciated. If anyone is willing to share some advice along the way, please do. hmwithτ 18:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Long term projects

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)

Request for more information about rejected requests

See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Rejected_requests. Maybe some automation could assist, or maybe it is more effort than it is worth. John Vandenberg 14:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Procedures update

The procedures need to be updated.

New Bot

Bjweeks was working on a bot. Anyone here anything from him recently?--Tznkai (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2009

Template overhaul

arbcomopentasks is getting mighty crowded. It is now common for us to have 2 clerks per case, and 1 drafting arb. We are likely to have teams of 2 or 3 drafting arbs, and 2 clerks, and that leaves us with 5 initalisms on a tiny tiny template. RfAropentasks needs to be modified to more easily take arbitration related RfCs, requests, and so on; ACA, I hate with a passion; Arbcomnav is underused. All in all, I think we need to overhaul our templates.

So, who here actually knows how to design those things?--Tznkai (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I know a lot of people tend to consider me the template guru - I can take a look once I get some free time. What exactly are you thinking of having done? Hersfold 01:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Archives

1 (to 26 January, 2006) 2 (to 28 January, 2006) 3 (archive of a discussion started on January 29, 2006 at the incidents noticeboard) 4 (to 28 January, 2006) 5 (current)

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)

I've completed collecting and tabulating arbitration statistics for 2008. The data is posted here:

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2008

Some highlights follow.

The 2008 Arbitration Committee considered 255 requests, voted on 53 motions, publicly heard 38 cases, and drafted and voted on 841 case proposals.

There were 152 case requests, open on average for 4.6 days, with 67% declined, 23% accepted, 8% withdrawn, and two disposed of by motion. There were 103 clarifications and other requests, open on average for two weeks, with the longest duration being nearly three months. The motions were open on average for 12 days, with 47% passing. The cases were open on average for 39 days, with the longest being open for just over four months.

Here is a smattering of individual arb statistics. On case requests, Flo has the honor of having the highest voting percentage of 85, followed closely by Sam with 82 and Brad with 78, against an average of 41 and a low of 6. Kirill drafted almost half of the cases, Brad though missing for a quarter of the year, drafted nearly a quarter of the cases. Kirill, Sam and Flo each acted on about 95% of case proposals, compared with an average of 74 and a low of 42. Kirill, Brad and Flo were on average the quickest to act on case proposals. (On a personal note I find that on most measures I myself was solidly mediocre. There was one area however in which I did excel -- declining case requests -- which I did a remarkable 93% of the time. This might be attributed either to judicial conservatism or laziness, take your pick.)

Having the 2008 data now allows comparison between years. For example the average case request duration is surprisingly the same for both years at 4.6 days. There are differences. For example, so far this year there have been 24 motions offered and voted on, versus only 53 for all of 2008.

(I've also cross-posted this at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration)

Paul August ☎ 16:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is awesome.--Tznkai (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Resigning

As announced I've been appointed to the Audit Subcommittee, so I think it is the right time for me to end my tenure as a clerk. I believe that its best to make a clean break between these roles if possible. More than that however, I have been impressed with the new group of clerk and clerk trainees who have volunteered to help out. I am confident in the dedication and ability in each and everyone of the clerks to do the job better and faster than I ever did. Effective immediately, I am resigning as a clerk. It has been a privilege.

--Tznkai (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Congratulations on your new appointment, and thanks for the long dedicated service in ArbCom clerking! - Mailer Diablo 04:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, congrats from me was well. I know you will thrive in this new position. Also, I want to thank you for all your work clerking for the committee. Cheers, Tiptoety 05:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, and we'll leave the light on for you. MBisanz 06:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Tznkai, thank you for your work as a Clerk, and welcome to the Auditing Subcommittee. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 10:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, Tznkai. You were a great mentor. Will anyone be able to pick up where TZ left off? I may need help with Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria. hmwithτ 17:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, Tznkai! Hmwith, I mentioned on the mailing list that I'm able to do it if you don't mind having a total newbie on board. Hersfold 17:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hersfold, I'm a newbie too. This is my first case, & I haven't really done much at all. hmwithτ 22:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then, I'll add myself when I open the Abd/Jzg case later tonight. I've been reading up on it some already. Hersfold 23:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

9/11 amendment request

Threaded discussion. Please move. Durova 19:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the note. KnightLago (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman and Bainer are having a fun little conversation. Someone might want to have a polite word.--Tznkai (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's the diff. Third time in one week: perhaps a clerk should remind this administrator that the posting rules apply to everyone. I tried several days ago, and his reaction was unhelpful. Specifically, "Threaded conversation doesn't hurt anybody, and the clerks don't complain because I don't do it that often." It could set a bad precedent for other editors if an experienced administrator treats this as the norm (and to be candid, it's no fun to be on the receiving end). Durova 15:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Opening of JzG / Abd Case?

Perhaps I have misunderstood, but I thought cases were opened one day after the fourth net vote to accept. As far as I can see, there have been at least 10 net votes to accept for something like three days now. Consequently, I am wondering when the case will be opened. Is there something I have misunderstood? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

See here. KnightLago (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... I was looking around a few places to see if there was any reasoning already posted, and that note was posted in the interim. EdChem (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the case has been delayed due to some confusion over who has assigned to clerk the case, and because I've had some other obligations off-wiki. The case should be opened later tonight. Hersfold 23:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Clerk page relocations

I've relocated the clerk procedure page and noticeboard to the main clerk page and its talk page, respectively, as part of the planned arbitration page relocations (WP:AC/N#LOC & WP:AC/N#LOCR).

I would be very grateful if everyone here could check over the results and see whether anything is broken (aside from the double redirects, which I'm leaving for the bot to clean up).

In light of the new arrangement on this page, I would also suggest reorganizing the sections a bit, such that we have a place for arb requests in the noticeboard on top, and the bottom section can be used for actual discussion instead. However, I'll leave determining the best layout here up to the clerk corps. Kirill  04:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking not ready for voting

Note Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Proposed decision#draft status - this decision isnt ready for voting just yet. John Vandenberg 04:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Clerk request re WP:ARBMAC2

SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs), one of the many "new" users who invited themselves in on the case even though they had no prior involvement, having created their accounts only after the case started, after swamping the evidence page with rants that weren't evidence, and the proposals page with rants that weren't proposals, has now entered on a spree of inquisitorial questioning against myself regarding some private discussion I had with another participant (here), and then went so far as to spam references to that thread across multiple other participants' talkpages, evidently to invite them to put further pressure on me , , . I believe this is crossing the line into harassment, and would appreciate if a clerk put a firm stop to this kind of behaviour. This person never had any business meddling with the case anyway; now it becomes overwhelmingly clear he's just here to stir up the shit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)