Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Appeals

Will this board eventually be listing any specifics, or is it simply to notify the community of the numbers? Not trying to be ungrateful, just curious about the specifics and purpose. I understand the "transparency" and all, but I'm not sure what the community is to take from this as it stands now. Worth watchlisting though - and thank you. — Ched (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ched the goal is to just present the numbers included or at least that's my only goal. The thought being that I think putting this together quarterly (which is my hope even though I wrote periodic in the notice) is a longterm sustainable activity for the committee while giving the community insight into private workload and giving a sense of proportion when discussing appeals. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Unless another arb beats me to it, I will be updating this Monday or Tuesday of next week. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Izno I had missed the adjustment you made to the table format when you updated last quarter. While it no doubt makes sense from a table sorting perspective to have the tiemframe be a simple numerical number, I think it should go back to being dates. First I'm not sure what dates go into a quarter are commonly understood. Second I'm not sure if you and I were not on the committee, who, if anyone, would maintain this and I think they should have the seemless option to do it biannually rather than quarterly, for instance. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

That second motivation seems reasonable to me but implicates mussing with either {{sort}} or data-sort-value for the arbitrary future maintainer just to ensure that you can sort on the date column, which I liked because then I could compare quarters.

I don't think I agree that what dates go into a quarter is an issue, but we can add some text to alleviate that concern either way. Izno (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

As for who would maintain it, I think there is a general requirement in the UCOC EG to provide anonymized data about the work that relevant groups do, which I take to mean this will be required to be done by Someone on the committee going forward, as it is the most pertinent to inform the public about IMO (well, besides the OS/CU audit). Izno (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think you are referring to the language Other groups that process UCoC violations are encouraged to provide basic statistics about UCoC violations and reporting as they are able, while honoring the principles of minimal data collection and respect for privacy. which this table most definitely does not do in any meaningful way. Further as an encouragement...as they are able it's a pretty soft expectation, to the extent there is an expectation anyway. As for sorting the work you did breaking the year column from the other time would still allow comparisons of quarters. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think that's the line, and yes, I see that this table does not do that. (I wonder what would???)

Yes, it would still allow comparison of quarters, but implicates mussing with either {{sort}} or data-sort-value for the arbitrary future maintainer just to ensure that you can sort on the date column since one could end up with some fairly mismatching dates regardless if one were to decide to do this less often (imagine three times a year, or someone decides not to line up the start of a quarter nicely e.g. 1 July is Q3 currently but if someone did it as 2 July one year).

Sorting rapidly breaks down in that situation anyway I guess, but I don't think someone would want to do it any less than quarterly at the end of the day anyway since the data isn't really all that great/useful when you start into doing it less often (and certainly doesn't end up a driver for accountability, which is what I take the presence of this table to be at the end of the day). Izno (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see that stats piece as essentially being unworkable on a project of size which is a reason it's such a soft expectation, though I suppose there would be ways for ArbCom, at least, to keep stats even if it would not encompass anywhere close to all UCoC enforcement on enwiki. But I think that breaks down quickly even for something like AE which we "own". Barkeep49 (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply