Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee implements genuine reform.

Good news at last: Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has implemented a new system that saves weeks and months of hassle without any loss in quality over their previous system.  Check it out here.

ArbCom 2009?

This may be a preview of what to expect from the 2009 Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, and if this is a sample then things don't look good.

Two days ago Geoff Plourde opened a request for clarification on the recently closed Piotrus 2 arbitration case. AGK agreed that a case which had about 20 named parties and remedies upon a substantial number of them would be better named Eastern European Disputes then named after one party.

The first arbitrator to respond was Rlevse:

Question--did anyone ask this before the case closed, by any method? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you know Wikipedia arbitration, the first place you'd look is the top of the case workshop page. And sure enough, second from top is a formal motion to do that.

Geoff was on the ball. Nine minutes after Rlevse's query he supplied a link to the motion:

A motion was filed here, but Arbitrators did not act on it despite support from several members of the community. Geoff Plourde (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In a sensible world that would clarify things, right? Kirill had a comment (more on that in a moment) before Newyorkbrad dropped this on the page:

It frequently happens that the final scope of a case winds up being different from what was anticipated, and we don't usually rename the case for this reason (except sometimes by dropping the name of a party who winds up not really being mentioned in the final decision at all). That being said, I might be willing to consider taking action here if Piotrus feels strongly about it; otherwise, there's really no reason to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Brad may be everybody's favorite arbitrator, but how hard would it be to click on Geoff's link and see that the motion to rename the case was actually initiated by Piotrus himself?

Proposed. First, it is obvious that I and Deacon are not the only parties. I believe that all editors who have presented extensive evidence sections or started their own workshop proposals (other than arbcom members) should be recognized as parties. Second, the focus of this case is not only my person, but quite a few other editors (this was also the case with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus. However, framing it as "Piotrus arbcom" is misleading, as it gives uninvolved bystanders an impression that it's "all about Piotrus and nobody else". This ArbCom started as "Piotrus-Deacon" but have obviously outgrown that, and should be renamed to something more general and less fingering individuals, such as "Eastern Europe". Let me stress: this is not a technicality, naming is important (see framing (social sciences).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Sam Blacketer didn't click on Geoff's link either because he reflect's Brad's confusion over whether Piotrus wants it.

It's a bit late but a rename would not be inappropriate if, as Brad says, Piotrus feels it is important. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

FayssalF also weighed in with a curious condition.

I have no problem with renaming this recently closed case (to reflect final remedies). However, I'd recommend such requests be made within a week of the closure; otherwise we'll end up renaming cases closed years ago. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, how about considering requests that get made two months before the case closed? Could you do that perhaps? Or could you (ahem) pay attention to them?

We have not, traditionally, renamed cases merely because the final decision dealt with users whose names did not feature in the original title; the only occasions I can recall where we undertook this sort of change involved removing names, not adding them. I'm not convinced that the idea of matching the title with the scope, in and of itself, is worth the confusion that radically renaming the case will cause; is there some substantive benefit to doing so? Kirill 03:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No arbitrator commented upon Piotrus's motion during the case (or apparently even noticed it was there), so even though editor responses ranged from neutral to favorable apparently, by Kirill's rationale, the fact that a reasonable motion gets ignored by the Committee eventually becomes grounds to hallow the mistake.

The most sensible comment so far has come from FloNight:

I'm open to renaming this case. My preference is to never name a case after an user since it often causes them distress. In situation such as this one, I think that naming the case after a single user in not for the best since it over emphasizes his importance in the situation. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't go quite as far as she does about case names generally, she appears to recognize the basic problem here.

What's worrisome is that several of these arbitrators weigh in with statements and questions that demonstrate a lack of even cursory examination of the matter at hand. I admire and respect people who disagree with me when their research and reasoning holds together, but it is frankly impossible to respect the opinions of people whose statements reflect a refusal to do obvious and easy homework. This is not the way to arbitrate, and several of our Committee members ought to be blushing when they read this.

Want fries with this?

Okay, upbeat stuff first. The following comes from the other day at FT2's user talk page:

It may be early to ask for FT2's head on a platter, so with that in mind allow me to suggest that those who demand it now provide recipes. The example below is provided for convenience (since I'm not actually asking for his head at this time). DurovaCharge! 11:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Durova's FT2 bake

* Preheat oven to 375 degrees Farenheit

• Braise with 2/3 cup honey
• Add dash of ground cloves
• Sprinkle with sliced almonds
• Insert apple in mouth
• Bake 40 minutes or until soft. Skin should be golden and springy to the touch.
• Serve on a bed of jasmine rice.

Can you translate that into metric, please? Also, I'd take this with some pepper and a grain of salt. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

190 degrees Celsius, 160 milliliters DurovaCharge! 12:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, FT2 and I have been in contact. That's no secret: I've posted twice about it on Wikipedia in the last day or so. The first instance went well:

I've looked at all (I THINK I've looked at all) the related pages and corners of this case, and though a statement of clarification from FT2 was promised at least 24 hours ago (at that time it was apparently waiting for the other arbs to vet it and decide whether it was okay to be released) I can't seem to find any such clarification. I've seen a great deal of writing, including Kirill's statement, Jimbo's request for calm, and comments from at least a couple or three other Arbs--but nothing further from FT2. Have I missed it, lost in megabytes of outrage, fog and pyrotechnics; or has it not yet been released? If it hasn't, do we have any sort of projected ETA for such a clarification? In short, where do we stand right now? (Many thanks, with apologies for any abject cluelessness on my part.) Gladys J Cortez 04:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. I was in contact with FT2 a couple of hours ago and he's doing fine, statement all ready to go, still in the same holding pattern for the same reason. Please be patient. DurovaCharge! 04:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no--I'm not complaining, merely curious as to whether I'd missed it. This discussion HAS splintered into quite a lot of places--I wasn't sure if I had them all covered. Thanks, Durova. Gladys J Cortez 05:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Not implying you weren't patient enough. I'd encouraged him to make a short post explaining the holding pattern. Naturally, you're not the only one who's curious. DurovaCharge! 05:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Then over at FT2's user talk page a similar exchange started:

You (being you personally and the ArbCom in general) really need to provide a full, public statement on how this case came into being and why it was not held on-wiki. (If the posting of the case was not approved by ArbCom, which I doubt, then I am afraid that those asking for your resignation are justified.) Stifle (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

* Agreed. FT2 has had a statement ready to go for a couple of days now and has been in a holding pattern waiting for a thumbs-up from other members of the Committee. Please be patient. DurovaCharge! 17:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

On the whole I would have preferred if FT2 had made a short post to that effect himself. In tense situations it's so easy for things to spin off into strange directions. He decided to give me permission to say a few words for him. In an ideal world that would have gone over just fine; I certainly hope the words I chose were fair and accurate.

So after the first exchange had been a calm and pleasant one, I thought the second was on good footing and afterward went off to do other useful things. I started restoration for a lovely panorama of a 1905 polar expedition. Was doing more work on it this evening before starting this blog post. Here's the work in progress; still a bit to go on it.

Now I don't want to call anyone out by name, but suffice it to say that things did not go well onsite afterward. After a while someone contacted me via gmail chat to say that there had been a wheel war. At that point I looked at a few pages, and discovered that my comment about FT2 had been badly misconstrued and a chain reaction occurred where several people had overreacted.

Oddly enough, it wasn't the cannibalism jokes that sparked the problem.

The request for comment on the arbitration committee is a serious matter and I hope it leads to meaningful reform. The events that happened today were unnecessary and I'm rather disappointed to have been dragged into them. It is much more pleasant to correct negative damage on arctic ice floes than to interact with people who aren't being their best selves.

To the extent I am able I would really like to foster a handshake resolution, because I wouldn't want the present situation to distract from arbitration reform. What I hope happens is a good night's rest and a graceful exit from the present to-do for everyone involved.

Request for comment on the Arbitration Committee

Was wondering how to start this post, about to head over to Commons to search for a portrait of Kafka, and happened to notice that one of the restorations I did a few months ago is on Wikipedia's main page: buffalo soldiers. Quite a bit of work went into that one. I had worried that people would complain about the quality when the nomiation opened, but there's something about the personalities of these men that shines through. First it's the big knife one rests on his knee front and center, then the pipe-chomping fellow at his side with a shovel on a shoulder. A whiskey flask makes its rounds, a couple of men brandish guns, and another peers shyly behind a tree. Somebody even decided to take a nap during the photo session--it's the most informal group military portrait from the nineteenth century I've ever seen. Also the most down to earth. I like these guys and want to talk to them, want to ask that one fellow why he's holding up a frying pan.

The whole scene says We're rowdy and disorganized but we get stuff done, and don't mess with us. A lot more than Kafka that's the spirit today.

Speculation has floated around about why this request for comment went live when it did. The people who were present for yesterday's Not the Wikipedia Weekly recording can confirm this chain of events: we got to talking about what was developing on the Administrators' Noticeboard and decided to do a breaking episode. Not the Wikipedia Weekly isn't quite journalism--some of us participate in the issues we discuss. It's a little bit like a group blog: we sensed that important developments were happening and wanted to document the experience of the events unfolding. That often gets lost after the fact on page archives.

Until Mbisanz joined our discussion I had been saying that Lawrence Cohen's draft request for comment on the Arbitration Committee was looking a lot more likely to go live, but I'd been saying not yet, not now. I wanted to wait for events to sort themselves out better. Then Matt announced he Lawrence's retirement and Lawrence's parting request to move the page into Wikipedia namespace and bring it live. Lawrence's wish was going to be fulfilled and soon; the only question was how. I asked Matt to let me do it at the end of our recording. When the wikidrama is running high even a short delay helps. That bought two hours, and what's more important it was an opportunity to start on productive terms: process, not individual grievance. I really hope that outlining procedural issues sets the right tone. One of the biggest dangers with opening this discussion is that people may try to hijack it to rehear their own cases. Yeah, we can rise above that. It's what's best for the site that counts.

Of course a few people interpreted the timing in the wrong light. So we wind up with this. I invited both Jimbo Wales and the Committee to participate. So far, the only current or former member of the Arbitration Committee to come to the page has not inspired confidence.

Observe:

Concur with Cool Hand Luke. A cock-up (which this appears to be) is a terrible foundation for a discussion of reform. Hard cases make bad law. Mackensen (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of history indicates otherwise... Exceptional cases make for bad laws in the general case... But it's long been evident that exceptional cases in regard to people in positions of authority make for some very good laws indeed. Many of the fundamental laws of modern society were born in such cases. Ask William of Orange. --Barberio (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

However, it is by no means clear what the authority is. Until and when the committee clarifies what's going on this is premature. Mackensen (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to the committee, clarification was asked for, the result was not compelling. Even assuming that the committee is too slow and over burdened to explain themselves, I think it's not appropriate to expect the community to let the arbitrators 'wait out the clock' till the next round of elections. As has tended to happen when issues of Arbitration Policy have been raised. --Barberio (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The cock-up surmise was posted by a former arbitrator who still has access to the arbitration mailing list and whose input may affect current decisions. He appears not to have noticed either the introductory statement or the page history that demonstrates the request for comment could not have been structured around recent decisions: the page went unedited from March 14, 2008 until June 28, 2008 when I brought it live. With the Committee's own performance under scrutiny he posts this way; I wonder how this person evaluates case evidence.
----
Image credit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Buffalo_soldiers1.jpg

Arbitration Committee performance review, Part 1

This is the first of a series of blog posts to discuss Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. If you're not already familiar with what that is, it's sort of Wikipedia's supreme court. Wikipedians call it ArbCom. It's not a fun place--it's where you go to solve problems that haven't gotten fixed anywhere else.

A little background: in Wikipedia's earliest years Jimbo Wales was the only person who could ban anyone from the site. He was the final stop in dispute resolution. By 2003 that was getting too cumbersome for one person to do alone, so new solutions got brainstormed. ArbCom went into operation in April 2004. It's a panel of 15 people who are sort-of-elected by the community, but ultimately selected by Jimbo (the process is complex). Jimbo reserves the right to dissolve ArbCom, but it's largely a theoretical right and has never been implemented. Sometimes arbitrators resign before their term ends. So when a vacancy occurs Jimbo appoints a replacement. Usually he chooses from the pool of also-ran candidates from the last election, but not always. The most (in)famous instance of that was the short-lived tenure of Essjay.

A growing number of experienced editors within Wikipedia have expressed concerns about ArbCom lately. Complaints per se are nothing new--nearly everyone who gets sanctioned thinks their own case was handled badly--and because of this discussions about arbitration problems generally get bogged down in the intricacies of this or that particular case.

It is my opinion that the Arbitration Committee was never a very scalable concept, and that its responsibilities have expanded past the point of diminishing returns. In order to present this in an impartial manner I'll focus on trends, and present tangible numbers. Wikipedia's arbitration committee has never had a performance review before. Considering the important role they serve in what has become the world's seventh most popular website, it's time that they do.

First, a review of Wikipedia's growth:
Apr 2004: 250,000 articles
Mar 2005: 500,000 articles
Mar 2006: 1,000,000 articles
Sep 2007: 2,000,000 articles
May 2008: 2,391,955 articles (as of this writing)


Following is my research on the arbitration committee's caseload. The research method is simple: I counted the number of open cases on the last day of each month since ArbCom began. Each example is linked to the source where I gathered the data. Requested cases and recently closed cases are not included toward these figures. Cases in formal review do count. Please report any errors so that I can correct them promptly.

My finding is a significant and sustained dropoff in recent monthly cases, reaching its nadir during the three most recent months (March-May 2008) when the Arbitration Committee has heard the least number of cases ever, including its first three months of existence from 2004 when the Committee had no preexisting cases in its docket.

2004
Apr: 4 cases
May: 6 cases
Jun: 6 cases
Jul: 9 cases
Aug: 12 cases
Sep: 12 cases
Oct: 14 cases
Nov: 13 cases
Dec: 13 cases

2005
Jan: 6 cases
Feb: 7 cases
Mar: 12 cases
Apr: 4 cases
May: 12 cases
Jun: 12 cases
Jul: 15 cases
Aug: 13 cases
Sep: 15 cases
Oct: 18 cases
Nov: 16 cases
Dec: 20 cases

2006
Jan: 26 cases
Feb: 14 cases
Mar: 12 cases
Apr: 12 cases
May: 11 cases
Jun: 14 cases
Jul: 19 cases
Aug: 18 cases
Sep: 12 cases
Oct: 11 cases
Nov: 11 cases
Dec: 13 cases

2007
Jan: 11 cases
Feb: 12 cases
Mar: 7 cases
Apr: 12 cases
May: 12 cases
Jun: 13 cases
Jul: 12 cases
Aug: 12 cases
Sep: 12 cases
Oct: 7 cases
Nov: 7 cases
Dec: 4 cases

2008
Jan: 7 cases
Feb: 6 cases
Mar: 5 cases
Apr: 4 cases
29 May: 4 cases

Several interpretations are possible based upon the data presented thus far. The introduction of community banning in mid-2005 and the 2007 expansion of community sanctions to include lesser remedies such as topic banning and revert parole is one factor worthy of consideration. In my opinion that does not fully explain the dynamic observed. Blog format is better suited to short presentations than long ones, and more relevant data will follow in future posts.

----
Image credits:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Wikipedia_Article_Creation.png