User talk:GRBerry/Data for Arbitration Enforcement RfC

I'd say that the evidence shows a significant change in behavior at the page somewhere between the 5th and 10th archive, with more text per report, more admins active, and discretionary sanctions coming into view. The number of reports per day picked up somewhat later, but has grown over time, and the reports for discretionary sanctions are becoming a majority of the reports to the page. The text per report grew again somewhere between the 20th and 25th archives, which is also roughly when discretionary sanctions became the majority of reports. In this sample, the majority of reports resulted in a warning or less (61% of reports), and this has been generally consistent across time. Non-standard discretionary sanctions were used in only 11% of reports, while 35% of the reports were in areas where discretionary sanctions are available. GRBerry 21:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is fantastic work!--Tznkai (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I need to rethink some of my existing comments in the RFC; some of them may have been based more in perception than reality, given this data.  But I need some time to reflect - and sometimes perception is reality, especially for impacts on people's emotions.  GRBerry 17:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree that there has been a dramatic change in the tone, content and size of WP:AE reports. Archive 10 is probably from the transitional period.  It might be interesting to go from 5 to 15 by threes and try to see what specifically was different. Thatcher 15:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've skimmed again archives 3,4,5,6,9,12,15; I think we should actually be focusing largely on 3-6, with an analysis more detailed than just what I did. To me 4 and 5 look a lot different than either 3 or 6, which to me feel more similar to current tone than they do to 4 and 5. Thatcher (and others), can you help with suggesting what specifically we should be testing? Number of comments by partisans?  Time from report to initial admin response?  Time from report to final admin resolution?  Area/topic of underlying dispute?  Behavioral concern in the arbitration case or report?  More generally, what are the factors that feel different so that we can attempt to measure them.  (I don't want to measure "tone" or other soft data myself; such are judgments and inherently more likely to be disputed.)  GRBerry 19:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)