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 WT:ACWT:AC WT:ARBCOMWT:ARBCOM

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.

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

WT:AC Archives

Late 2003 – May 2005 May 2005 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2008 April–October 2008 October 2008 – April 2009 April 2009 – March 2010 March 2010 – February 2011 February 2011 – July 2011 July 2011 July 2011 – October 2011 October 2011 – late May 2012 late May 2012 – September 2012 September 2012 – February 2013 March 2013 – July 2013 July 2013 – November 2013 November 2013 – October 2014 October 2014 – November 2015 November 2015 – December 2016 January 2017 – January 2019 January 2019 – May 23, 2019 May 21, 2019 – January 2020 February 2020 – March 2021 March 2021 – June 2022 June 2022 – July 2023 August 2023 – present

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Effectiveness of coordinating arbitrator role

Latest comment: 5 days ago9 comments5 people in discussion

With the start of the request for comment discussion on the arbitration committee election approaching, I was wondering how the coordinating arbitrator role has been working out in practice. Any insight from arbitrators, or anyone who has sent correspondence to the arbitration committee, would be appreciated! isaacl (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Daniel is the coordinating arbitrator, no one voted, no one gave him a title, no one calls him that. The position itself doesn't actually exist. It's pretty much as I assumed it would play out. Either someone does it, or no one does it. Doesn't matter what title we give to the position, and no one uses the title. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not concerned about the title. I'm wondering if the associated tasks are being done more effectively (by anyone), including assigning identifiers to action items such as correspondence and ensuring that they get done. In other words, has there been a difference in how the committee manages its workload, in positive or negative ways? isaacl (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, Daniel is the MVP and keeps things moving. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's good to know. The community doesn't know about these things unless someone on ArbCom tells us. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

SFR is being far too kind in his effusive words above, but I agree with his sentiment that things appear to be working reasonably well for the Committee as a whole at the moment, thanks mainly to the awesome group we have on the Committee who work to resolve all the issues we have come in. With regards to the paper-pushing side of things, I can provide some additional context to the process here, and to be clear the below is only my own summation and not authoritative:

• Email comes in
  • If it's an email that is misdirected or out of scope (a minority of emails received), an arbitrator will reply unilateraly with one of the approved boilerplates. These do not get logged on the list of active/resolved issues for workflow & workload reasons (often they're resolved before I even see them in my inbox, by virtue of being handled unilaterally).
  • If it's in scope (a majority of emails received), see next step.
• All emails that reach this stage get logged internally using a standardised format - details include a generalised anchor identifier, date received, exact subject line (for ease of reference when people search their inboxes), current age (days since received, that auto-updates at midnight UTC), a link to the email chain in the archives (for ease of access for arbitrators if they can't locate in their inbox), and then a full log of actions taken or currently being discussed - this can include 'draft reply proposed', 'block/ban proposed', 'no further response necessary proposed', a list of all follow-ups received, various others etc. etc.
• Discussion ensues, replies get drafted, and then we reach a resolution either through (depending on the nature of the issue) net-4 or majority of active non-recused.
• Reply gets sent, and email on the internal log gets moved to "Resolved" or "Awaiting external replies" depending on if we're waiting further info or not.
• Twice a week (Wednesday and Sunday UTC) an update of all issues gets emailed to arbitrators with the above info for all currently-active email issues, all recently-resolved email issues, and all on-wiki currently active tasks across AR, AR/M, AR/CA, etc.

This isn't a formalised process or anything, and it's subject to continuous improvement internally to best meet the needs of the Committee — but it's working from a workload perspective from my end, and seems to be doing a decent job of keeping track of everything so far. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Whereas my process is "reply to emails and on-wiki matters when I see them and rely on Daniel to make sure I don't miss any." MVP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate gaining more insight into the committee's working procedures, which I think will be useful for those considering to run or vote in the next election. (ScottishFinnishRadish's initial response made it sound like the tasks weren't getting done.) Keeping a workflow operating smoothly is one of those unsung-hero jobs that makes everyone else's lives so much better! isaacl (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

While there's been no formal assignment of the role, as SFR and Daniel mentioned, it is a role that is being filled internally and it's made a huge difference. Daniel is making sure things stay moving and that nothing gets lost in the shuffle, and is doing an absolutely amazing job of it. I disagree that SFR is being too kind, it's a critical role and Daniel stepped up without hesitation and the committee has benefited enormously from it. We didn't have anyone acting in such a role last year, and it showed. - Aoidh (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply