Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Navigation aid request re: admonish

Understanding that admonish is just a fixed term for the strongest possible warning, I think users may wonder whether it has particularized meaning within ArbCom proceedings, e.g. it seems possible to suspect an admonishment has an enforcement dimension where an "ordinary" warning would not.

Would it be helpful to link WP:ADMONISH (or a few such shortcuts) to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Severity of remedies—and possibly place a {{shortcut}} on the page reflecting such? Remsense ‥ 论 22:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocking policy and the change from discretionary sanctions to contentious topics

At Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Bad Link On Page, Piningforpines has pointed out that one of the links in the "Unacceptable unblocking" section still points to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Modifications by administrators. There isn't a directly equivalent section on the CTOP page and I've not immediately found anything that is blindingly obviously correct (including the OP's suggestion). To keep discussion in one place, I suggest responses are made there rather than here. Thryduulf (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

For context in this conversation, I'll bring in the appropriate quote. Context: This is a list item under where blocks are not acceptable.

• When the block is explicitly enforcing an active Arbitration remedy. Arbitration enforcement blocks may be appealed using the special appeal provisions.

Given what words are in the link, I suggested that the replacement link would go to the page detailing how that process works. If the idea is to link to the policy, I feel like "When the block is explicitly enforcing an active Arbitration remedy." being the link would be clearer. Piningforpines (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The link has been updated to a suitable target. SilverLocust 💬 17:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Add one word to WP:ECR without ARCA or Motion?

If a single arbitrator is able to make a tiny change to ArbCom Procedure, I think "to make edit requests" should be changed to "to make uncontroversial edit requests".

ArbCom's intent is that non-EC only request EDITXY, but the page on edit requests provide two choices: if uncontroversial then EDITXY, if controversial then discuss for consensus.

My one word addition would solve this, and improve the non-EC user experience in the words of KevinL, reducing bitey experiences of being blamed for not sticking to EDITXY. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

If it is done, I also request the same change be applied to Template:Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

An enacted procedure like WP:ARBECR may not be boldly edited without an amendment by the Committee. SilverLocust 💬 23:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I will also note that non-EC editors must make an edit request for any proposed edit, not just the uncontroversial ones, so this proposed change would actually prevent these users from making not-uncontroversial edit requests. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the status of active/inactive needs some tweaks.

There's a comment from me way up this page about this needing some help, and I believe we are seeing an example of what I was referring to right now. The current proposed decision has been open for eight days. While not every arb listed as active has voted on every last thing, nearly all of them have voted on enough items that a final result is beginning to become clear.

However, I can't help but notice that one arb has been otherwise extremely active on-wiki but has not voted on any aspect of the PD. This is a decision they are free to make, but some of the remaining items seem to be closely contested. This is where it starts to really matter, numerically, who is active on this specific case and who is not.

It's obviously a bit late in the day to change procedures in a way that will impact this specific case, but I do think some sort of "involuntary de-listing as active on a specific case or decision after X amount of time" should become part of committee procedures, just to make the math more clear in such a case. Any arb so removed can be added back if they decide to go ahead and vote, but if they have no intention of doing so, they are clearly de facto inactive on the case/motion/ARCA/etc and I believe that the vote tally should reflect that.

I'm not trying to single anyone out and have deliberately not named the arb in question. This is not a new or unique issue, I believe I "took a case off" myself at least once. Arbs are volunteers and don't get paid any more than the rest of us, but I do believe the committee has an obligation to not let things just linger due to lack of participation from committee members otherwise listed as active on the roster.

So I guess I'm "taking the temperature" as regards if there is any interest in making a procedures change to this effect? Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 19:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Procedures were followed, actually; they were asked if they wished to be marked as inactive and indicated that they are planning on voting on the motions. That this has yet to happen is unfortunate but I suspect there are good reasons for their continued absence. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm really not trying to make this about one specific arb or case as I believe this is an ongoing problem regardless. My proposed timeframe above was ten days, which in this case they have not even hit yet. I'm sure you can recall some past items that have sat far longer than that for similar reasons. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough; I do agree with your points. I have been attempting to take a more active role in the last few months to ensure (in)activity is looked after, so hopefully it will not be as much of a problem going forward. Primefac (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Arbitrator activity and voting does already cover inactivity for a week, though perhaps more explanation of "the usual venues" should be provided (I assume it refers to arbitration pages). I appreciate the committee may want to be a bit flexible regarding cutoffs when there is an opportunity for the result to change based on some of the missing votes. Nonetheless, ensuring that a case progresses reasonably expeditiously seems like a good task for the co-ordinating arbitrator. isaacl (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I mean, it does say that, but I don't recall a single instance of it actually being done. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

As I implied above, hopefully that will change going forward. Primefac (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure. I just personally think tweaks to the written procedure aren't what is needed, given what is already there, but someone to drive tasks to conclusion. isaacl (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Data of time from posting to close

Someone asked me to put these numbers together and this was a mindless task I could do while watching some NFL playoffs. So here are some stats of how long PDs are open in days (measured from date of posting to date of close). I also looked at length of PD when posted and when closed to see if there was any correlation and there wasn't so I haven't included the data.

Year	# of cases	Average Length	Median Length	MIN of Length	MAX of Length
2015	16	17.00	13.5	3	43
2016	5	9.80	12	2	18
2017	5	19.20	13	8	41
2018	5	14.80	8	5	32
2020	6	5.17	5	2	9
2021	3	5.67	4	4	9
2022	5	8.40	8	3	16
2023	6	7.67	8	4	12
2024	4	14.75	14	10	21
All time	55	12.47	9	2	43

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This last/current PD went about as well, timing-wise, as one could reasonably expect. I was deliberately ignoring the committee in '15 so I missed whatever case broke the record then.

It's kind of amazing that the committee ran so lean and mean during the pandemic years. I guess we all had the spare time to put into it. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I first looked into this in 2022 when it felt like cases were taking longer. And I was right, but when I then started looking into pre-2020 and I realized there wasn't actually a problem. Arguably 2024 was just returning to historical norms (if still setting a mark for highest median length). The 2015 record was for AE2. Catflap/Hijarri and Magioladitis both were at 41. Kevin Gorman and Jytdog are the 2 dayers. As long as we're into trivia, GamerGate previously held the record (at least in the time period examined) for largest PD page (~264kb), but PIA5 has now topped it (~318kb and counting) at end of discussion; HJP is the largest in the time period at time of posting/pre-voting (!46k) which is a little remarkable because that includes a few cases in the dataset where there were motions/injunctions; post-PIA5 it's now 3rd for length at close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

My conclusion is that the committee runs slower for one year immediately after I have been on it.

GamerGate was bad, and the reason I was allergic to the committee for the next year, but three PDs going over forty days in one year is crazy. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I was on the committee in 2015 and remember spending a lot of my time trying to get my fellow arbs to make decisions one way or the other. Thryduulf (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)