Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

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.

Two navigational aid suggestions

Hi! My user story is that I've been digging around case history for the purpose of candidate review for WP:ACE2024. There have been a few consistent slowdowns that I feel could be improved by technical clerking on closed case pages.

The easy one: transclude {{Casenav}} at the top of case subpages in the Wikipedia talk: namespace. It's a lot of clickarounds to navigate between talk subpages.

The more difficult one that may already be implemented but I'm too stupid to find it / doesn't display in Minerva / something: a link (maybe in {{Casenav}}, maybe on the main case page) to the archived WT:ACN discussion of the case closure. The threads at WT:ACN often can provide valuable context for how community members respond to ArbCom decisions, and usually also contain relevant followups from Arbitrators.

I'd be willing to track down all these threads in the archives if – understandably – no one here wants to do it, but I'd want some confirmation first that they'd be linked somewhere useful before putting in the work (which probably won't be that bad since there are only 51 archives).

Anybody else think these are good ideas? Any clerks willing to implement? Folly Mox (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the first suggestion, casenav should already be the second banner at the top of case talk subpages, but mobile Minerva hides those unless you click "Learn more about this page" to view them. Could you clarify what you are suggesting?

To partially address (or begin to address) the second suggestion, I have asked Legobot to create an archive index at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive index, similar to this example. I believe the bot will create it around 03:00 UTC. SilverLocust 💬 16:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SilverLocust, yes it looks like I attached the "may be hidden in Minerva" caveat to the wrong item. I guess I was expecting the template not to be hidden since it is visible on the case subpages in the Wikipedia namespace. Please chalk that one up to my own stupidity. Folly Mox (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recruiting new arbitrators

Although this might be a topic more suited for Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Election, it has fewer than 30 watchers, so I'm starting a thread here (and it can be moved elsewhere if desired). A number of current and past arbitrators have expressed a need for more arbitrators to take on certain tasks. Previously I started the Wikipedia:Arbitrator experiences page to collect links to descriptions of the work done by the committee, to help potential candidates better understand what they will need to do. Is there interest in having a more targeted pitch to prepare candidates, and that can talk about particular challenges that need specific skill sets? Beyond availability of time (which is a hard thing to manage with Wikipedia's volunteer environment), spreading the workload seems to be an ongoing problem. Are there any ideas about how to attract users willing to do some of the less desirable chores? From the outside, it's easy to see the drawbacks; from the inside, though, is there a way to sell the upside of being an arbitrator? isaacl (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, the committee has tried and failed at having specific roles, such as WP:AUSC and WP:BASC. I had no involvement with AUSC, but I was on BASC in 2014 and it worked like this: an appeal would come in, and either one arb would reject it out of hand, or one or two arbs who may or may not be on the subcommittee would comment on it, it would sit there for a while, then maybe one more arb would comment on it and eventually someone who again, may or may not be on the subcommittee would action the result and reply to the appelant. This process often took close to a month. Shortly after my term expired I proposed reforming the subcommittee to something that actually worked, but, to my surprise, we wound up getting rid of it. As of last year it worked essentially the same way, just without the pretense that there is a subcommittee. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A subjective impression of mine is that arbs who focus on back-of-house tasks tend to be less visible and possibly as a result tend not to be re-elected as frequently. I opposed getting rid of the BASC, preferring to reform it into something that required fewer emails prodding other arbs to actually make a decision one way or another so things didn't drag on for months, but that was not the consensus of the 2015 committee. I get the impression that there still isn't great workflow management because nobody has been able to get past the intertia. I wonder if there is a sweet spot for changes to things like this - not too early in the year so new arbs know how things currently work, but not so late in the year that enthusiasm for innovation hasn't waned? Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently bouncing around half a dozen ideas to improve workflow. Each has their pros and cons though. I'm definitely interested to hear thoughts from Arbs who were on the Committee during the subcommittee times, because one idea is to institute a sort of tracking subcommittee to ensure we don't lose things. Not saying I endorse it or oppose it, we are in the ideation phase here and need honest feedback. I've elaborated on other ideas at ACE and will probably elaborate more here as things continue. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workflow discussion is great, and I've tried to encourage it before (as well as in my thread regarding IT support). If you prefer, I'll leave this thread for that, and start a new one regarding recruitment. isaacl (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is the year that this will change, but I've been of the opinion that the best way to recruit more candidates for ArbCom is to have more admins (since that's who the community has, to date, shown a willingness to elect). In terms of the good things about being an arb: you can make close connections with your fellow arbs, you get to have conversations you wouldn't otherwise (this for me is one of my favorite parts of being an arb), and you can leave the committee with CU/OS if you want. But I think if we can fix the admin pipleline issue (and the October admin elections are promising in that regard) I think ArbCom is suddenly in better shape since a person who is like "I don't really have the time but if no one else runs I will" doesn't have to run because others do, where as now I think some people who are in that category of time end up running rather than waiting for a better time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started to write something about the administrator elections, as I agree about needing a flowing pipeline of expertise, but deleted it as I wanted to focus on the recruitment aspect to fill immediate needs. Each year we seem to hear, well, we could have used more people doing X. I think we should be more active in letting the community know about those needs up front, both for candidates to know and emphasize in their statements, and for voters to consider. isaacl (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMF IT support

As I recall, once upon a time, new workflow management tools for the arbitrators were being considered to be deployed, but the initiative wasn't implemented. Now there are discussions once again on this front. Is there a shortfall in WMF IT support to help enable this work to proceed (including transition planning and support)? If so, is there anything that the community can help with (if it wants) to encourage the WMF to provide the necessary assistance? isaacl (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure which tools were supposed to be deployed, but workflow management tools are hella expensive; even the cheaper options run in the order of 5-10k per year; I've been looking into some of the free stuff that is out there and they are not really well-suited towards our workflow needs. Primefac (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If WMF paid for that then they'd have something to put in the fundraising banners next time.

Wikipedia is at risk of falling to systemic inefficiencies, and if even one in twenty of you donate a dollar, we can provide the arbitration committee with a reasonable ticketing and task tracking system, maybe the same Zendesk service that WMF already uses, so they can keep a handle on what's going on.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I called it that to be general, but is there any software tool that could help the arbitration committee but is being held up by a lack of dollars, or a lack of staff to support its deployment planning (including transition) and ongoing support? Maybe an ongoing keyword index of the arbitration email archives? Providing support for a shared Google calendar and task list? Trello board? Support for using Phabricator to manage tasks? Just trying to understand if there are any bottlenecks that the community might help with. isaacl (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two main issues; dealing with emails before they drop down our respective inboxes, and keeping track of votes. Most of the free stuff I've seen (Trello, Asana, etc) is reasonably good for the former but not the latter, whereas paid services such as Zendesk and Google Groups would allow us to do both. We actually have a private Phab space as well that I secured for us, but it is really bad at vote-tracking. At the end of the day, we can (and probably will) just track everything on ArbWiki (I plan on doing a proof-of-concept myself over the next six weeks) but it will require someone put in the time and effort to manage it. (also, regarding the free stuff, it's just one more platform/website for each arb to keep track of, which is not ideal) Primefac (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps WMF IT support could help by learning the committee's requirements, and developing a plan for deploying a solution that uses a minimum number of platforms? Maybe it's a bunch of special extensions and bots for ArbWiki, enhancements for Phabricator, or something else. isaacl (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why people have wondered where this went. We looked at this (particularly the email tracking) way back when I was an arbitrator (so 10+ years ago). We were offered several options back then, but there were objections from some arbitrators that we'd somehow "lose control". Well, the problem was that we didn't have very good control to start with. I worry that vote tracking seems to be the biggest unaddressed concern, though. Risker (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"vote tracking" being hard for what? There are only 15 people that can vote on anything, how is not a numbered wiki list sufficient? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine it is not the tracking of the number of votes on a given discussion, but keeping track of which matters have open votes, where they are (emails, arbwiki), how long they have been open, who has voted on each of them, who is recused, what the current tally is, how many more votes are needed*, who is active and hasn't voted, etc. From memory when I was an arb I did some tracking like this using a combination of arbwiki and local text files on my computer which was not scalable or collaborative.

*some things just require a majority of those commenting, some a simple majority of active arbs, some 70% of active arbs, some are "I'll do this is nobody objects" (which need tracking to make sure it doesn't get forgotten if nobody objects and to move to a more formal discussion if someone does), etc. What happens in the event of no consensus isn't the same in every case either. Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is making me wonder whether arbcom has a need for a (paid?) secretary (for want of a better term) whose job it is to keep track of all the correspondence, voting, and other open tasks. They'd need to be privy to the internal discussions (to see votes, etc) but would not be a member of the committee - they wouldn't vote, but would keep track of who has voted, who needs to comment, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been pondering some ideas along these lines. Because I think there was a proposal once to have clerks perform this type of role that got razzed by the community, I was thinking about having an arbitrator emeritus role, where someone whose term had ended could continue to co-ordinate arbitration work without voting or discussing any substance of the matters under consideration, or an elected non-voting arbitrator who sits for longer terms. But it's not clear to me that we could get enough volunteers to staff such a position. A paid position would be more effective, but I'm a bit wary of community reaction once again. isaacl (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding workflow management tools are hella expensive; even the cheaper options run in the order of 5-10k per year, please don't fall into the very common trap of forgetting to value your time just because you're not getting paid. With a bit of WP:SYNTH from an off-wiki thread, let's assume arbs spend 20 hours/week on administrativia and a good tool could cut that in half. That's 500 hours saved per year. If that tool costs $10k/year, it would pay for itself if arbs valued their time at $20/hr. That's not much more than minimum wage in the US. Even when I'm in full grumpy mode, I'm sure that arb time is worth many times that. RoySmith (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're part of the free content movement and ArbCom handles private user data that should not just be casually handed over to third party service providers. There should be a very, very strong preference for free and open source software hosted on WMF infrastructure in whatever tools you're looking at. – Joe (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RRfAs

Could all arbitrators please attend the current recall RfA and inform the community that: your role involves an oversight role of administrators. Recalls and admin behaviour might be submitted to ArbCom, so you will not be commenting on or publically evaluating RRfAs during your ArbCom tenure. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 22:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129 Speaking for myself, I had recognized that RRFA editors might end up before us, and thus consciously have not engaged with the facts of any particular RRFA. That is much in the same way that I don't engage at AE as a sitting Arb, because we might hear an appeal from it. Is there some particular aspect of the current RRFA that has prompted this request? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom members remain members of the community while on ArbCom, and have just as much right to discuss RRfAs as anyone else, though they then take the burden on themself of whether they might need to recuse at a later date. There is nothing different about RRfA than any other discussion elsewhere. Izno (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Izno on that point. I don't think we have to force Arbs to not participate at RRFA. They just take on the risk of recusal. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are as usual dead right Cap'n. But it seems important enough to post about. Let us flaunt our neutrality like Switzerland 🤪 SerialNumber54129 22:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was odd as well, but not to the point where it was worth making a big deal about it. Anyone who has been on the committee can doubtless recall a time where the shied off from commenting or taking action at an ANI thread or whatever because the issue might end up before the committee later. As Eek said, you can make the other choice and then you need to recuse if and when it does reach the committee. Of all the things that were said at that RFRA, this is hardly the weirdest. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]