Jump to content

Template:Arbitration Committee activity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jayen466 (talk | contribs) at 04:20, 29 August 2011 (→‎SEO experiment: ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Creating a case

(1) When creating a case, add the list of arbitrators active on the case to the top of this template, right after the "==". (For the list of arbitrators by activity to be used in new cases, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Members.) The format is,

{{{{{|safesubst:}}}#ifeq:{{{Casename|}}}|yes|
'''Active:'''
#arbs

'''Inactive:'''
#arbs
}}

Then, place {{ACA|Casename=yes}} on the proposed decision talk page, replacing case name with the name of the Arbitration case (e.g., Example 2). Do not "subst:-" it during the case (this completely defeats the purpose), and do not add a header (the header is automatic), replacing "Casename" with the name of the actual case. {{Casenav}} will then automatically add the list of active and inactive arbitrators to the proposed decision talk page, so long as {{{Casename}}} is the same as the case subpage name.

(2) After completing the first step, add the text {{Casenav}} to the proposed decision talk page.

Updating

When an Arbitrator becomes active or inactive, they usually do so on multiple cases. This template makes it possible for a Clerk to update the lists of active/inactive Arbitrators on proposed decision talk to update the listings en masse, instead of one by one.

When an Arbitrator goes away or returns, update the majority notes on the voting pages themselves, checking to make sure they haven't already voted in that particular case. Then, opening up your contributions page in one window or tab, and this template in the other, move the arbitrator on all the cases you have recently edited.

Please note that Arbitrators sometimes deal differently with the transition from away/inactive to active status, depending on how long they were away, how many cases are pending at the time, and personal preferences. For example, one Arbitrator might ask to be moved to active on all pending cases, while another might choose to become active only on new cases accepted after returning, or only on cases where they actually vote on the decision. If the arbitrator's desire is unclear, they should be queried. The one definite rule is that an arbitrator must be listed as active on any case where they voted on the proposed decision.

If an Arbitrator chooses to recuse themselves from a case, the heading "recused" should be created between the "active" and "inactive/away" headings for that case, and the appropriate name(s) listed.

After

The Clerk who closes the case should subst the template on the proposed decision talkpage at the time of closing. This will finalize the list of arbitrators who participated (or were eligible to participate) in the decision. Please remove lists of closed cases from the bottom if you notice them accumulating, but only after making sure the template was substed on those cases.

SEO experiment

Regarding the SEO experiment conducted by User:Prioryman

  • Whorlton Castle has now moved to being the no. 2 Google result for google.co.uk searches using "Whorlton Castle" as the search term (conducted from a UK location).
  • About two weeks ago, Prioryman and myself reported it being the no. 10 Google result for the same search. [1]
  • Note that all 61 links to the page presently shown on Yahoo! Site Explorer are Wikimedia links: [2] (60 from English Wikipedia, one from Danish Wikiquote).
  • In google.co.uk searches for Whorlton Castle (without quotation marks) the Wikipedia article is now in 11th place (one lower than two weeks ago).

Various explanations for the rise from 10th to 2nd place are possible; they include:

  • The addition of internal links has affected page rank, but with a time lag.
  • There are external links to the article that do not show up yet in YSE, but are taken into account by Google.
  • The expansion of the article over the past two weeks (from 12,000 to over 16,000 bytes) has affected page rank.

A number of SEO experts have stated that Wikipedia's internal links do affect the page rank of our articles (e.g. [3], [4]). At this time, it would be safest to say that we cannot be certain one way or the other. --JN466 04:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)