Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:16, 23 November 2016

Use this page to discuss information on the page (and subpages) attached to this one. This includes limited discussion of the Arbitration Committee itself, as a body. Some things belong on other pages:

requesting arbitration: WP:A/R
discussing finalised decisions of the committee: WT:ACN
discussing pending decisions: find the proceedings page at Template:Casenav
discussing the process of arbitration: WT:A/R

Shortcuts

This Arbitration Committee has been mentioned by a media organization:

Ramey, Corinne (May 7, 2018). "The 15 People Who Keep Wikipedia's Editors From Killing Each Other". Wall Street Journal.

Number of seats

This page should indicate how many seats there are on the committee, and what are the criteria for being elected. Is there a limited number of seats, and that number of candidates with the highest number of votes are elected, or can the number of members vary, and is there some other criterion for determining who is elected (e.g. above a certain percentage of valid votes cast)? Timothy Cooper (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Declining caseload

This year has been an unusually quiet year for ArbCom. If the Committee does not accept another case this year, that would mean 2016 will have only experienced ~~4 arbitration cases~~ actually 5 arbitration cases. This is the least number of arbitration cases per year in the history of the Arbitration Committee.

Pulling the number of cases from the top of each year's case index:

2004: 35 cases
2005: 100 cases
2006: 116 cases
2007: 91 cases, 6 dismissed without action
2008: 39 cases, 2 dismissed without action
2009: 30 cases
2010: 12 cases
2011: 16 cases
2012: 11 cases
2013: 12 cases
2014: 11 cases
2015: 18 cases
2016: ~~4 cases (as of 12 November 2016)~~ actually 5 arbitration cases

I haven't been around here terribly long, so I'm a bit curious about what caused this apparent decline in cases. Does the decline indicate that the community is becoming better at resolving conflicts on its own without a formal, structured process? Or does it indicate there are less conflicts in general? Is that because there are fewer members of the community in general than 10 years ago? Or has the ArbCom simply become more restrictive over time on what kinds of dispute deserve arbitration – i.e. would the same kind of case accepted by the 2006 ArbCom be accepted by today's ArbCom? Mz7 (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, also, that many things are handled behind the scenes. A decline in cases does not necessarily mean a decline in workload. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. I guess I just assumed the amount of behind the scenes work remained the same. Has there been a corresponding increase in the amount of work done behind the scenes as opposed to on-wiki? Mz7 (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did some stats on arbcom email traffic awhile back and it looked like this year has been within the same range as the past few years, so either we're talking more than usual about each case, or the proportion of "behind the scenes" stuff has gone up a bit. (Also, people always talk about number of cases and not ARCAs, but IIRC those are up a bit too, and they can sometimes take a fair bit of time/discussion.) Peak Arbcom Email happened in 2009 and traffic is now at around a third of its peak.

As for taking cases, one thing to keep in mind is that many of the recurring areas of dispute eventually ended up under DS, so instead of generating new arbcom cases, they're now being handled through AE. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an important point. I'm sure there's a link between the introduction and spread of DS and the declining caseload. Doug Weller talk 19:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a major factor I think - without discretionary sanctions the Israel-Palestine topic area alone would probably generate 2-3 arbitration case requests each year, some of which would result in a case. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you go back and look at that cases from circa 2004-2006 you will see many disputes that would today never get anywhere near arbcom - they'd be resolved at a much lower level. This does mean that the cases which do reach arbcom these days are the disputes are the complex ones that take significant untangling, which is why a 2016 case takes much longer than a 2006 case. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've said before that I think the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of avoiding arbcom at all costs, with the consequence that decisions are made in less structured venues like ANI where there's less time and motivation for careful research. It's a self-reinforcing cycle that there's no obvious way out of - if we only get the very messiest cases, then all people see of arbcom is long, ponderous, bureaucracy-laden tedium accompanied by a month of mudslinging on the talk pages, and it perpetuates the idea that arbcom is best avoided if at all possible. One thing I do think we did well with the lower case volume this year is getting PDs out promptly - I don't think they were ever more than a few days past the target date, compared to last year when there were weeks of delay in some cases.

As for AE/DS, that has its ups and downs - on the one hand, one might wonder what the point is of going through a month-long, high-drama election to choose arbs when most of the ground-level decisions are going to be made by whichever admins self-select into AE work, on the basis of case decisions made several arbcoms ago. On the other hand, arbcom has never really built an effective mechanism for quick decisions on small things - ARCA is one of the slowest arb-related venues lately - and at this point the community has built up enough experience with these hot-spot areas that a long investigative process really isn't necessary.

Another consequence of the dropping-case-volume trend is that the relative importance of the behind-the-scenes parts of the job increases, even if the quantity doesn't change that much. Obviously, it's harder for the community to judge who will be (or was) effective in the behind-the-scenes roles, and arguably harder to recruit arb candidates to do a job they haven't been able to see. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: That's interesting. Overall, do you think the arbitrators do a good job of handling the behind-the-scenes work, despite it not being exactly what they signed up for, or do you think there could potentially be a better way to handle it? Mz7 (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7: I think we're reasonably good at handling the "routine" behind-the-scenes stuff, though many of the issues brought to us are unfortunately not really things we can help much with. As a rough guess, around a quarter to a third of arbcom-l threads that originate from people who are not arbs, functionaries, or trolls are about harassment/outing issues, often involving things happening on other sites. (We also get a lot of appeals of CU blocks, and lost souls who ought to have sent their issue to OTRS.) That being said, the more unusual the circumstance, the more ineffective we'll probably be - we're really muddling through on some of that harassment stuff.

What we're not very good at is handling these things quickly. One of us will do a sweep every so often to find external messages that haven't yet received responses, but there are still sometimes lengthy delays in getting back to people. (Speaking for myself, I find it easier to keep up with email than wiki stuff, because it's easier to deal with on a phone, but other people have different systems.) A skim of the arbcom-l archives suggests that this is a case of "twas ever thus", though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: 2016 had 5 arbitration cases, not 4. Mz7 (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7: It depends on how you count them. I'd count only cases brought to the committee this year, so wouldn't count the Kevin Gorman case, that should be counted for 2015. Doug Weller talk 19:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A truly minor point, I think most people take the numbers of cases from the tallies on WP:RFAR/C, which dates the cases based on when they closed. The reason for the minor 4-vs.-5 discrepancy noted above is not the holdover case, but that one case (Michael Hardy) was inadvertently omitted from the listing until someone added it yesterday. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, I was wondering why the number had changed. Doug Weller talk 06:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Newyorkbrad, for clarifying. That's exactly where I was pulling the numbers of cases from. Mz7 (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBCOM mass-messages

I have added myself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery to avoid the mass-messages sent by WP:ARBCOM. Please provide a means for me to opt out of your messages so I can go back receiving important mass-messages from other sources. Users interested in elections could watch Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard and so a one-time mass message (or preferably pop-up) to this effect would be welcome. Cessation of using the mass-message feature for election notices would avoid unwanted intrusion to the entire Wikipedia community. Thank you. --AlastairIrvine (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AlastairIrvine: Hi! Consensus was established in this RfC to notify all eligible voters who have edited in the last year. A similar RfC should be held before next year's elections, so I would recommend chiming in to this effect when that RfC is held. =) Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair to me. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I opted out, I would still see the thousands of notices to user's whose pages I watch. I wish I could see the watchlist for only a few hours. Every time that I want to look today, it takes minutes. - Could you (whoever responsible next year) at least not send it to people who HAVE voted? Like myself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt Have you tried the "hide bots" option on the watchlist page? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now. (Not that it has anything to with arbcom, but once you ask here:) I wasn't precise. It's not so much the number of entries that I mind, but the time it takes to wait. To use the "hide bots", you first have to get to the watchlist (waiting), then you can hide (waiting again). Normally I want to see what bots do, but how about a new function as a user preference: "ignore arbcom-related messages". All of them. The low number of cases in 2016 is a true blessing, thanks to all sitting arbs! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logo

Hi there, I created a logo for you. Please use it as you wish. Kind regards, --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 ::Another consequence of the dropping-case-volume trend is that the relative importance of the behind-the-scenes parts of the job increases, even if the quantity doesn't change that much. Obviously, it's harder for the community to judge who will be (or was) effective in the behind-the-scenes roles, and arguably harder to recruit arb candidates to do a job they haven't been able to see. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 04:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 :::{{ping|Opabinia regalis}} That's interesting. Overall, do you think the arbitrators do a good job of handling the behind-the-scenes work, despite it not being exactly what they signed up for, or do you think there could potentially be a better way to handle it? [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 19:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
+::::{{ping|Mz7}} I think we're reasonably good at handling the "routine" behind-the-scenes stuff, though many of the issues brought to us are unfortunately not really things we can help much with. As a rough guess, around a quarter to a third of arbcom-l threads that originate from people who are not arbs, functionaries, or trolls are about harassment/outing issues, often involving things happening on other sites. (We also get a lot of appeals of CU blocks, and lost souls who ought to have sent their issue to OTRS.) That being said, the more unusual the circumstance, the more ineffective we'll probably be - we're really muddling through on some of that harassment stuff.
+::::What we're not very good at is handling these things ''quickly''. One of us will do a sweep every so often to find external messages that haven't yet received responses, but there are still sometimes lengthy delays in getting back to people. (Speaking for myself, I find it easier to keep up with email than wiki stuff, because it's easier to deal with on a phone, but other people have different systems.) A skim of the arbcom-l archives suggests that this is a case of "twas ever thus", though. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 21:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 :<small>Correction: 2016 had 5 arbitration cases, not 4. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 00:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)</small>
 :::{{re|Mz7}} It depends on how you count them. I'd count only cases brought to the committee this year, so wouldn't count the Kevin Gorman case, that should be counted for 2015. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 19:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)