Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Arbitration motion regarding submission of evidence in arbitration cases

Original Announcement

Noting here that a related motion and discussion can be seen here. It would be nice to tie together such motions and discussions thematically, so there is a sense of continuity. Carcharoth (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hasn't this been the rule, or similar, for quite some time? Enforcement > new rules. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The difference is more space is now allotted for named parties to cases, instead of 500/50 for all comers. Courcelles 21:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

    I believe there should be a delineated process to formally object to an inclusion on some ground, requiring the committee either sustain or overrule the objection in proximity. There are too many things that should be "removed, refactored, or redacted" which are not! and legitimate objections fall upon blind eyes. IMO My76Strat (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

    My76Strat, you're always welcome to email the clerks list or leave a message on a case clerk's talk page if you feel something should be "removed, refactored, or redacted". Lord Roem (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

    Yes I understand, and appreciate your extenuation. My comment is more procedural and it allows for consistent alignment with the committee mindset. For example if user Ae states "A significant number of xe's edits are..." I might object saying "significant is vague puffery" If the committee sustains, Ae might refactor and state: "Too many of xe's edits are..."where I might again object stating that "it predicates a conclusion not in evidence" Ae might be left to withdraw his assertion or state "two of ex's edits have been..." My concern is that we allow weasel sentiments and fact synthesis to pollute the integrity of our evidence well and then acknowledge the water has a foul taste. This is as important as a blp and we should not allow a standing case to be written to any standard less. IMO My76Strat (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

    Is my comment above so far out in right-field that it doesn't even qualify to be answered? My76Strat (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

    ...maybe... (joking). My simple reply would be this: That would be *way* too much unnecessary work. Arbitrators are clueful enough to understand when someone is using evidence in an improper way or is using false synthesis. And give credit to the drafting arbs where its due. They take these things seriously - and being on the "inside" only entrenches that understanding - they really want to get it right. So this 'objection' system...sort of already exists in the arbs' minds. No need to make it a drawn-out process as you suggest. Status quo works, at least in this context. Additionally, it makes the system become really really legalistic. I would hope we could try our best to stay away from that. -- Lord Roem (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

    Thank you Lord Roem. I see your counsel as reasonable. It is sufficient for me. Best - My76Strat (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

Original Announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

Original Announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change (2)

Original Announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology (Sanctions)

Original Announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology (2)

Original Announcement

Arbitration motion on decision elements

Original Announcement

Amendment: Brews ohare topic-ban (Speed of light)

Original Announcement

• Good. Where problem tendentious editing is involved, and where there is an ongoing or historic pattern of the same behavior, I encourage AC to use this approach more often. There is little that is worse than editors discovering that they will need to be exhausted forever in order to have Community standards and policies against disruptive and tendentious editing enforced effectively. AGF is not a suicide pact, and Wikipedia is not therapy; if after being subject to remedies of the existing case (and enforcement blocks leading to a 1 year site ban) an editor is returning to the same problematic editing habits in a particular topic area, there is simply no alternative. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion on standardized enforcement

Original Announcement

2012 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Call for applications

Original Announcement

The statement: "Prospective candidates should be familiar with (i) the English Wikipedia CheckUser and Oversight policies; and (ii) the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy and related documents." leaves the impression that the call is for editors who want both permissions, but not just one or the other. I don't think this is the case.SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a wrong impression for the truthful gist is that regardless of role, a working familiarity with each is requisite for either. While specific information is not exchanged, interactions are common, often necessary. The application will ask about all three and expect you to construct examples. My76Strat (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That surprises me. I reviewed the questions and answers at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2011 CUOS appointments. I don't have a clue which IP ranges are used by ISPs in Turkey, to pick one response in the CU area, but I am unclear why I need to know this to determine whether a particular edit is eligible for oversight. I did feel that I could answer all the questions posed to those asking for Oversight, so I'm missing the overlap. (Technical, that is, I understand the overlap in areas of trust, but that's not an issue.) I haven't seen the actual application, so maybe that asks some questions I cannot answer adequately.SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not what the original statement means, or what My76Strat was suggesting. All functionaries need to be familiar with both the CheckUser and Oversight policies to the extent that they provide guidance on the handling of private data. Checkusers and Oversighters will sometimes work together (to clear up after particularly abusive sockmasters posting OS-worthy material, for instance) and need to understand the limits of the other party's activities; and have an appreciation of how to treat private data generated from the 'other' tool when they encounter it. All functionaries are 'qualified' to receive private data, of any form, if required (as the exact counterpoint to private data not being shared with any other functionaries unless it is required); if a Checkuser needs to share CU data with an Oversighter to resolve an issue (or vice versa) then it will be shared, and handled appropriately. Happy‑melon 21:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Seconding Happy-melon here. It's the policies relating to both functions that you need to read up on, not how the tools work, as you might need to see information from the other tool at some point. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that it is routine for users with oversight to see the information generated by the checkuser tool or similarly as routine for a checkuser to see the suppressed information after suppression, for the needs of their own responsibility, then it is true that I am mistaken. For I disagree. I'll simply leave it there. My76Strat (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Could I suggest you try reading the thread again. You, me and Happy-melon were apparently all saying the same thing up to this post of yours, now I don't know what your original response meant at all. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes you may Elen. I am surprised you still think so little of me so as to presume I hadn't. My76Strat (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think highly of you. I just find you a little hard to understand sometimes. But in this case my concern is that Happy-melon also found you hard to understand maybe, and has interpreted what you were saying in the wrong way, as you now seem to be disagreeing with it. However, I phrased it badly now I look at it again - which is what I meant to say. Could you take a look at the thread again. I agreed with Happy-melon who thought he was agreeing with you, but you disagree with me, so we must have gone astray somewhere. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Elen, I wish I could express myself better. The Lord knows that I try (ain't that right Lord Roem). To make a long story short, I just realized where I misread a passage from Happy-melon, and then further misapplied your endorsement of them as supporting the thing I had misread. Had I read it correctly at first, I would not have even had a comment. I suppose it's like yesterday when a user asked a question about a plant and I gave a medium length answer about a planet. I guess it's time for some new glasses. I apologize. My76Strat (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I guess it was one of those "I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realise that what you heard is not what I meant..." Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly one of those times; with a few more twists; worth untwisting. For you see, I had prepared a thoughtful reply for Sphilbrick 20:59. That edit conflicted with Happy-melon and before I could resolve it, wouldn't you know; my internet connection goes down; for hours. At first I was stuck; froze in edit mode; but able to see Happy's regards. I read his, and mine, and again, and I did feel we had essentially said the synonymous thing. My error was reading the first sentence, "That's not what the original statement means, or what My76Strat was suggesting.", and mentally processing it as if it implied; That's not what the original statement means, nor was My76Strat correct.

So I looked and looked to see where did we diverge so greatly that I needed being corrected. By the time my connection did restore, I had watched some tv, went to the store, and visited with my dad (all good). And I somehow forever lost the comment I did wish to publish for Sphilbrick (not so good). I return to find your comment which appears to imply; Happy is right, and it's kinda that way. I take this as two people who feel that correcting me was the right thing needed in this thread (falls in the not good range).

It wasn't until after we said what we said; when I copy pasted what he said to show you what I thought he said when I saw that what he said wasn't what I thought he said but in fact it was what you said you thought he had said; and I had already written many words that didn't need to be said now that I knew what he said was what you thought he said instead. So I erased them, and told you the short version. And now here, a bit more.

Before I do close here, I want to summarize the most important aspects of the {{ec}}comment I had for Sphilbrick that was lost: I think you would be a very good candidate and encourage you to go forward with requesting the trust. Peace - My76Strat (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses. I had read the Checkuser policy before and reread it last night. My original impression had been that being a Checkuser required a skill set I hadn't acquired, and that still remains true. I failed to distinguish between policy and subject knowledge. However, I understand the policy, and accept that both permissions require a sensitivity to handing private information, so see why they are both listed. (And thanks for the !vote of confidence.)SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Has there ever been a user that was given checkuser or oversight permission that wasn't already an administrator?--Rockfang (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware of the situation Risker pointed out below. However, it is still true that nobody was appointed directly as a checkuser or oversighter without having administrator permissions. That counts for something, right guys? Er, guys? Are you still there? </selfdeprecatinghumour> ;-) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If we haven't, it's because we haven't had a serious candidate (that I can remember), not because of a blanket ban. Happy‑melon 11:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. A former AUSC member, Bahamut0013, was not an administrator when he was appointed to the AUSC. Risker (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for responding.--Rockfang (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Motion on Rich Farmbrough enforcement

Original Announcement

• I'm struggling to see the point of this motion because it doesn't do much more (and created far more drama) than a request to WP:AE would have done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Just an FYI - the discussions involving this and related motions can be found here. Lord Roem (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to have to ask

Is it a problem if RF (manually, of course) answers queries on his talk page whilst he's away? Nobody Ent 21:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The block doesn't extend to removing talk page access, so I think it's fine if he answers questions on his page. Lord Roem (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Motion on procedural motions

Original Announcement

Only 24 hours? I understand the general theory that Wikipedia time is faster than normal time, but 24 hours is awfully short. Can it be "at least a week" or something? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Amendment: Scientology (Lyncs)

Original Announcement