Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2014)

Original announcement

Drawing the committee's attention to AE

I don't know if the Arbs regularly check the Arbitration Enforcement section, but I did want to draw everyone's attention to the three open requests, one filed again Pigsonthewing by Nikkimaria, another, also filed by Nikkimaria against Gerda Arendt, and the last filed by RexxS against Nikkimaria, all concerning infobox-related behavior.

Without commenting on the majority of the issues raised, I'd like to point out to the committee the clear fact that the committee's use of an "admonishment" as a sanction -- in this instance against Nikkimaria in the Infobox case -- seems to be taken by the admins commenting at AE as having no effective value, and not as an enforceable sanction at AE. For this reason, I'd like to suggest that, in the future, any admonishment should be made enforceable by a specific mention of potential sanctions should the behavior which brought about the admonishment be repeated.

It seems to me that if an editor involved in a case did nothing wrong, then there would be nothing in the results of which impacted negatively on the editor. Conversely, if an editor's behavior rises to level which results in a slap on the wrist, there ought to be specific mention of what will happen if the admonishment is ignored. Obviously the committee cannot go back and change the results of the Infobox case, so I offer this as an opinion about the results of future cases. BMK (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The AE thread was closed as the case contained no remedies enforceable at AE. A request has now been made at WP:AN#Nikkimaria - topic ban proposal to topic ban Nikkimaria. Arbitrators may wish to keep abreast of the thread to save reading later - if this doesn't succeed in ending the problems around infoboxes it will not be long before the topic is back with the committee. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Obviously I can't speak for them, but in the past the Committee has said, when asked this previously, admonishments are a type of warning and so can't be enforced directly. If a user, who's been admonished by the Committee, continues to do the things they were admonished for then the matter can be brought back to the Committee for review and action (etc). In this case the community is dealing with it first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Callanec: Thanks for that explanation. If that is the case, and I have no reason to doubt it is, my preference would be for the Committee not to deal in essentially toothless warnings, but to specify to the admonished editor something concrete which will occur if they don't reform their behavior. After all, ArbCom is our highest level of governance on Wikipedia, and "warnings", per se, can be issued by the lowliest rank-and-file editor. ArbCom's admonishments should carry more weight than that, and have a more definite and specific meaning. BMK (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree. In the one case I was involved in drafting I deliberately avoided "admonishment", opting instead for a warning which mentioned that continuing the problematic behavior could lead to a ban.

The thing I am beginning to realize is that an arbcom decision is only as good as the evidence submitted. We are not an investigative body, we rely on the parties to the case and community members familiar with the issues brought to us to provide evidence for us to examine. Sometimes this includes evidence of wrongdoing by a particular user which, while problematic, simply isn't enough to justify a specific sanction on that user. That's where these admonishments come in. I've never liked putting it that way, it feels like saying "boys will be boys" and sweeping it under the rug. A clear warning to desist with the problematic behavior and an indication of what will happen if they do not seems to me to be a more effective deterrent. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: last call for applications

Original announcement

Floquenbeam's resignation

Original announcement

I'm curious what percent of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee's time is spent on arbitrating disputes between users. My impression is that it's less than twenty percent. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

In a brief (very moving, though sparsely attended) ceremony earlier this morning, I deleted all ArbCom-related emails from my computer, so I can't go back and count. But my initial instinct is that 20% is probably in the ballpark, at least as a long term average. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Floquenbeam: :-) In many contexts, a 20% success rate is a dismal failure (rated F- because the scale bottoms out at such a level). I wonder at what point it becomes clear that the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is failing and should be disbanded. We have OTRS and the wiki. That covers public and private discussions pretty well, I think. Better than arbcom-en-c or whatever. Out of hundreds of Wikimedia wikis and tens of thousands of MediaWiki wikis, nearly all of them do not have an arbitration committee and they get by just fine. Eh. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Sad because you were my voice of reason there, but I completely understand ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me add - in a little ceremony - how much I liked "no foul, play on". Play on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your service, Floquenbeam. Risker (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks and appreciation from me too. I found the explanation quite moving, and I wish you all the best with respect to your peace of mind. And it reminds me, once again, that the Committee needs to find ways to redefine and delegate its workload. As MZMcBride suggested, too much Committee time and gastric acid is devoted to things other than arbitration. Sadly, the very fact that the Committee is overworked means that the things that could correct these problems keep getting pushed to the back burner. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We're all going to miss Floq on the committee, but at the same time we all understand why he needs to do this.

In my opinion our biggest timesink is WP:BASC. It takes up a huge amount of committee time, and I would estimate that only about 15% of appeals are successful. (although technically there are only 4 arbs on the subcommittee, all arbs get the emails and it is rare for only the four of us to discuss appeals) I have already been drafting ideas for how we might hand most if not all responsibility for non-arbcom ban appeals to a community-run subcommittee with maybe one arb as a liaison to the full committee. I hope to have something fleshed out and ready to present for discussion soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm delighted to hear that you are giving attention to that. In case it has been lost in the shuffle, please let me make you aware of some discussions between Roger Davies and me about the same thing. I prepared a draft for him at User:Tryptofish/Draft for ArbCom. My discussions with him are at User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 23#Mail handling and User talk:Roger Davies/Archive 2014#At your service.... --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll ask the heretical question: is there any value to having a BASC at all? You talk about the 15% that are "successful", but I suspect you mean "we unblock 15% of those that appeal". Any idea what the percentage is of appeals that are unblocked and don't eventually get reblocked? I suspect that is a number that is well under 1%.—Kww(talk) 03:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe it's much higher than that. For example, in 2014, we've unblocked 7 editors according to the archive. One has been subsequently reblocked. That's an 85% success rate on the ones we do let back. Worm^TT(talk) 08:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry to hear this, wishing you the best. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• I'm sorry to see you go, Floq. Best wishes! → Call me Hahc21 20:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• saw this - primary question imho is why was a candidate, and others that were poor choices being voted in ? why would a candidate offer his services and then get accepted for two years then drop out quickly and then resign after a quarter of their term.... this shows an issue with the polling process and the election structure Mosfetfaser (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  I don't think it's a problem with the polling process or the election structure - I think it's a problem with being on ArbCom. It's a relentless sea of requests and high expectations. There's only so much we can do and that makes it a draining experience. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/History will show you just how many arbitrators have dropped out, for a number of different reasons. Worm^TT(talk) 09:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  Looking at that list, it would be better is the arbiters here were professionals and not unnamed volunteers - Mosfetfaser (talk)