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.

All work relating to pending requests on WP:RfAr

• I'll close up Ayn Rand the first thing in the morning. Apologies for the delay. - Mailer Diablo 13:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done! - Mailer Diablo 04:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All work relating to Arbitration cases already opened

Scientology

• Clerks, please help maintain the clarity and relevance of evidence in Scientology by moving inappropriate commentary to the talk page, paying particular attention to sections that do not provide relevant evidence. — Coren ^(talk) 03:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  As a note, that case is nominaly Penwhale's, but if he didn't get to it in a few hours could some other clerk please give him a hand? — Coren ^(talk) 03:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penwhale, do you need a hand here?--Tznkai (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Penwhale appears to have gone inactive (last edit on the 29th, and the previous one dating some three days prior); could some other clerk please take over swiftly until his return, to manage the situation on the evidence and workshop pages which do not appear to have improved since? — Coren ^(talk) 23:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll get to it when I can, but elections are my first priority - could I have at least one other clerk assist me?--Tznkai (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, still no action and the problem is getting worse. I posted evidence overnight. Jayen posted a commentary upon it (which he labeled as a commentary in his section header), and after I requested he move it to the evidence talk,[1] he expanded it as evidence.[2] Justanother is acting similarly.[3][4] This case is difficult enough under the best of circumstances. Clerking is badly needed. Durova^Charge! 20:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request noted. I will try and ping a clerk and get some eyes on this. Carcharoth (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I went through and moved most of the commentary to the talk page, should be good now. MBisanz ^talk 04:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the editors reverted MBisanz. Durova^Charge! 06:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been slightly swarmed by school-related work these days. I'd love another pair of eyes on it, as it's hard to sort through ~250kb of data with just one person. And for the record, which edit of MBisanz was reverted? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 07:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Never mind, just checked. In this case, I don't mind too much (as it's a direct counter-argument). If it goes into deep discussion then move would be appropriate. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 07:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hi Penwhale, best wishes with your studies. Here's the diff.[5] Durova^Charge! 07:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ec'd with you. If that's ok, fine. It's been a very strange case. Best regards. Durova^Charge! 07:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone mind delinking all the headers on the /evidence page please to make it easier to link to please? Thanks in advance – Roger Davies ^talk 08:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone around who could do this please? – Roger Davies ^talk 05:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done MBisanz ^talk 05:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Can everyone note that this should be done routinely on all cases from now on please, along with keeping headers to a manageable length? Thanks, again. – Roger Davies ^talk 05:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That can be done by changing the header, if needed, in the template pages. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that would be best. – Roger Davies ^talk 05:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've delinked all the evidence headings except Date Delinking and MZMcBride, where I am recused as involved. MBisanz ^talk 08:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again, – Roger Davies ^talk 08:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Various editors are listed in Wikipedia: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 ^talk 08:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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

Cool Hand Luke

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

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 ^talk 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^talk 20:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 03:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^talk 04:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^talk 04:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Arbitration Statistics

FYI: I've made some changes to Wikipedia: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)[reply]