Having just read through the guideline to Arbitration again and being an uninvolved party in a recent ARBCOM case, I think it would be very useful to provide a rough timetable so that newcomers would know what to expect when they participate in a case. This would intentionally be overgenerous in estimated time periods so that no pressure was on arbitrators but parties in the case would have realistic expectations.

What I'm thinking about is something like:
Evidence period: 2-4 weeks
Workshop period: 2-3 weeks
Proposed decision: 1-3 weeks
...Something like that, just a rough estimate. I know I found myself thinking that the process was moving very slowly only to look at other cases where from the request to the final decision, 3 months had passed. So, the processing of Ebionites3 was actually quite timely.

I know that there are interruptions, like an ARBCOM election or holidays, that slow down a case, but I still think providing a time range would be useful to newcomers to the AC, especially if this information is added to the guidelines page. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would need to say that there is no formal timetable, but that as a guide recent cases have typically taken X time when there have been no unusual interruptions. You'd probably want to note that the evidence and workshop phases can partly overlap but other than that it's a good idea. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading over some cases, Thryduulf, and it seems like cases typically take longer to finalize than the participants expect. During the process of the arbitrators sorting through all of the evidence and talking among themselves, I've seen some of the involved parties get antsy and dig themselves into an even deeper hole. If, at the outset, people filing requests for arbitration knew it would take 2-2 1/2 months, they might behave differently. I even saw one case where an involved party laid out a timetable he devised so that the whole ARBCOM proceeding would wrap up in 10 days. It shouldn't be a surprise that this is not what happened.

I think that those Editors who have been around a few years know the time involved with ARBCOM hearing a case but I think a generous timetable would be informative to newer Editors and might prompt them to find alternative ways to resolve their disputes. I think it might even relieve some of the AC's burden (plus avoid lots of anxious messages to case clerks) if Editors knew in advance how deliberate the proceedings would be. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the guide to arbitration is quite long (I wish everyone actually read it before participating), did you have any suggestions as to exactly where this note about duration should go? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually target turnarounds for each phase of a case in our Procedures. These are a bit shorter than those you have, namely:

1. The evidence phase lasts two weeks from the date of the case pages opening;
2. The workshop phase ends one week after the evidence phase closes;
3. The proposed decision is finalised within one week of the workshop phase closing.

These are obviously target times, but some cases do more or less follow them. I hope this helps,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the responses, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs and Roger Davies and your patience with an inquisitive, relatively new Editor (first registered account in 2007 but only recently regularly active). You are so right that there already exists this timetable which does exactly what I requested! I guess I would just add that, in looking over old cases, I've seen so much variation in the time to resolve a case. I saw a case involving one Admin that was resolved in one week while other cases lasted over 3 months, much longer than the 4 weeks outlined in this timetable. I believe in one instance, the case was officially suspended for a while before it was restarted but it still seems like 2 months is pretty typical for a case involving a topic (and not an individual Editor/Admin).

I guess the question is, what steps in the process are underestimated, in terms of time. In the case I participated in (Ebionites 3),

• Main page (initial statements) - September 4 - September 16, 2013 (13 days)
• Evidence phase - September 17 - October 1, 2013 (15 days)
• Workshop phase - September 29 - October 24, 2013 (26 days) (Period extended by ARBCOM twice)
• Proposed decision - October 23 - November 4, 2013 (13 days)
• Total (deleting 4 days of overlapping periods) - 63 days (9 weeks)

And, for what it's worth, I think the Ebionites case went very smoothly and there was only one active case during this time period. I can see other cases, with more than 2 involved parties or when there are several cases open, taking much longer. So, it seems like the timetable doesn't include the initial period, where Editors provide statements (I'm not sure if there is a standard time length for this period), the Evidence phase stayed on schedule and the Workshop and Proposed decision phases were underestimated by at least one week. I should state that I don't think going over the estimated time is due to AC clerks or the Arbitrator guiding this particular case, these circumstances seem fairly typical in the cases I looked at. There were not long periods of inactivity so it could be that the standard period for deliberation in each phase is closer to two weeks (but that's just a guesstimate based on one case).

If you like, I can assess the past year's ARBCOM cases and determine the average time spent on each phase of the cases. Or if I'm being a tad over-eager, I can just say thanks again for the replies! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest there might be more productive uses of your on-wiki time than that pursuit (and I'm a statistics junkie), but if you want to toss us some more accurate means or median times for cases (the latter would probably be more useful) by all means go ahead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my background is in qualitative social analysis and my last job was analyzing trends in social media. So, I'll probably end up collecting the data for my own interest, along with the regular editing that I do.

I know "we are here to write an encyclopedia" and people are discouraged from spending time on process, but my own interest is in organizational analysis, particularly social movements and nonprofit groups. So, I'm 100% clear, I'm not doing any kind of official study, it's just my area of interest and training and I thought I could put it to use here, on Wikipedia. I think the information might be useful to ARBCOM to better understand itself and how the committee has changed over time.

I'll let you know what I come up with, when it all comes together. All the best! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, if all current active arbitrators who may be up for re-election recuse themselves from cases that have something to do with the election, how many would be left? equazcion → 12:09, 12 Nov 2013 (UTC)

There are 6 arbitrators who are not up for election this year, best shown on this chart. In general though, I see no reason why arbitrators should be making decisions on the elections, that's for the co-ordinators and the community. Arbitrators should stay as far away as possible from the election process, besides the obvious participation. Worm^TT(talk) 12:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I was asking because of this clarification request, which seems to be seeing recusals that I assume are for this reason. equazcion → 12:18, 12 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Mine's not, I'm not up for re-election this year, but I'm long recused on all matters to do with Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Worm^TT(talk) 12:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. I guess that leaves 5 then (assuming those up for re-election do recuse). equazcion → 12:23, 12 Nov 2013 (UTC)

At least a couple of sitting arbitrators whose terms expire this time have indicated that they do not intend to seek re-election. I see no reason for them to recuse. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators who are running for reelection (or who are currently undecided whether they will run or not) will typically recuse on any case or other requests directly affecting the election. Arbitrators who are definitely not running again (at least four), or whose terms aren't expiring (six), are eligible to participate. Of course, an arbitrator may also be recused on a given matter for reasons unrelated to the election (as I am on the Kiefer.Wolfowitz matter for example). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the archives for clarification requests? There was a clarification request on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes that I am unable to find because there doesn't seem to be a link to any archives on that page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The clarification requests are traditionally kept at the talk page of the case. In this case, it's at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Request for clarification (October 2013). Hope that helps. Worm^TT(talk) 14:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ha ... I did not know that. Thanks, Worm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been debating whether to comment on this or not, but I noticed that The_ed17 took a series of, uhm, "strange" actions after I filed my clarification request on 18:21, 27 November 2013 ([1]). To list the actions:

• [2] (23:10, 27 November 2013): Comments on a stale discussion over my block removal, which is watched by various users who voted to uphold my block.
• [3] (23:46, 27 November 2013): Leaves a "courtesy note" to Laser brain (who voted against my block removal) pointing him to this discussion.
• [4] (23:54, 27 November 2013): Directs Sandstein (the admin who blocked me) directly to this clarification discussion.

These actions would have no merit for suspicion on their own, but (added together) paint an ugly battleground and gaming situation. These kind of actions are unbecoming of an administrator.
Perhaps the biggest evidence of a grudge taking place is his comment on Sandstein's talk page. Anyone who has interacted with Sandstein knows that the user is a hard worker and has eyes all over the place. There was no need for Ed to contact him about this clarification request. Ed's actions reflect an attempt at forming a posse.
I honestly don't even know what is Ed's problem with me. The only negative connection between us is the problem concerning his close friends (and what led to my topic ban in the case "Argentine History"). Given that, it's not unfair to also consider he might be serving as a meat for his friends, which is also a concerning situation.
I don't know how else to address this matter without causing a drama at AN, so this seemed like the optimal place (given the clarification request is still active). Hopefully this is also a good way to start burying several hatchets. [:o)]
Happy holidays.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a case of WP:Votestacking Cambalachero (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]