Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions
TonyBallioni (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
This is a symptom of an overactive ArbCom, probably in reaction to last one, but I am quickly losing confidence in the ability of this committee to be fair to anyone who is active in difficult areas, and have lost substantial respect for many of its members. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 13:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC) |
This is a symptom of an overactive ArbCom, probably in reaction to last one, but I am quickly losing confidence in the ability of this committee to be fair to anyone who is active in difficult areas, and have lost substantial respect for many of its members. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 13:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
:One of the primary roles of the committee is to audit the use of checkuser and to provide appropriate corrective guidance where necessary. –[[User:xeno|<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b>]][[user talk:xeno|<sup style="color:#000">talk</sup>]] 14:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC) |
:One of the primary roles of the committee is to audit the use of checkuser and to provide appropriate corrective guidance where necessary. –[[User:xeno|<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b>]][[user talk:xeno|<sup style="color:#000">talk</sup>]] 14:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
::That response assumes infallibility. Given the last 3 months, this ArbCom has proven itself to be the most unfair and overactive that we have seen in recent memory. We have a desysop based on blatantly false FoFs (BHG), an ArbCom case over an IBAN that should have been kicked to AN and resolved in 72 hours, and now this. Sure, it’s within your authority to do all these things. My point is that you all have rushed to get involved in matters faster than any ArbCom in recent memory, and have a remarkably high public error rate because of this haste. This was an unforced error. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 14:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ec}} Unfortunately the argument that the more work one does inevitably leads to a higher error-rate in doing so was found inadequate in RHaworth's arbcom, and I assume the same princile applies. Also—and I don't think I'm known as a cheerleader of this arbcom, probably far from it—but although we're only painting pictures here, if there were policy violations involved (''IF''—I'm not sayng their were) then they would specifically ''not'' be mitigated by volume of activity.{{pb}}I can well understand Bbb23's refusal to be micromanaged, if that was the case—it's an ''absolutely untenable position'' to put anyone, and absolutely impossible for anyone to accept. It would be odd, indeed, if anyone thought it would have another outcome than it didd. [[User:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">'''——'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">''SN''</span>]][[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:#8B0000">54129</span>]] 14:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC) |
:{{ec}} Unfortunately the argument that the more work one does inevitably leads to a higher error-rate in doing so was found inadequate in RHaworth's arbcom, and I assume the same princile applies. Also—and I don't think I'm known as a cheerleader of this arbcom, probably far from it—but although we're only painting pictures here, if there were policy violations involved (''IF''—I'm not sayng their were) then they would specifically ''not'' be mitigated by volume of activity.{{pb}}I can well understand Bbb23's refusal to be micromanaged, if that was the case—it's an ''absolutely untenable position'' to put anyone, and absolutely impossible for anyone to accept. It would be odd, indeed, if anyone thought it would have another outcome than it didd. [[User:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">'''——'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">''SN''</span>]][[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:#8B0000">54129</span>]] 14:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 14:22, 2 April 2020
|
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.
- Good solution IMHO, although it will be interesting to see how it turns out given that these to editors edit solely in the exact same areas... Cheers, --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 23:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Workshop formatting suggestion
Shouldn't the "Analysis of evidence" come before the "Proposed final decision" sections? It seems to me that a natural progression is to first analyze the evidence, and only then propose a decision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Psl631 unblocked
Comment on Bbb23 and symptoms of an overactive ArbCom
I posted this to CheckUser-l and ArbCom-en, but I think it worth posting publicly:
Just a general comment without being particularly aware of any specific incidents:
I’m sure there were likely checks that can be questioned, but that can be said of literally anyone who has the tool because the use of the tool is discretionary and discretion means that people are going to make errors in judgement calls. An error rate of 2-3% in any line of work requiring discretion is more than reasonable, but Wikipedia/Wikimedia’s system of accountability only looks at individual events.
Given the scale of his work, I’m sure whatever letter ArbCom sent could likely have enough individual events justifying it that would not reflect the scale of his good work. Given that he ran around 2,000 checks a month, even an error rate of 0.5%, which would be more than reasonable, would be 10 checks to point to a month when drafting something. There are of course individual events that might warrant this, but those are egregious ones involving using the tool to manipulate and control or intentional release of data, none of which I have seen here.
Having looked through his log, while he was more liberal than I may have been, but overwhelmingly he was right, and from a statistical standpoint likely was around the norm or better.
This is a symptom of an overactive ArbCom, probably in reaction to last one, but I am quickly losing confidence in the ability of this committee to be fair to anyone who is active in difficult areas, and have lost substantial respect for many of its members. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- One of the primary roles of the committee is to audit the use of checkuser and to provide appropriate corrective guidance where necessary. –xenotalk 14:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- That response assumes infallibility. Given the last 3 months, this ArbCom has proven itself to be the most unfair and overactive that we have seen in recent memory. We have a desysop based on blatantly false FoFs (BHG), an ArbCom case over an IBAN that should have been kicked to AN and resolved in 72 hours, and now this. Sure, it’s within your authority to do all these things. My point is that you all have rushed to get involved in matters faster than any ArbCom in recent memory, and have a remarkably high public error rate because of this haste. This was an unforced error. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Unfortunately the argument that the more work one does inevitably leads to a higher error-rate in doing so was found inadequate in RHaworth's arbcom, and I assume the same princile applies. Also—and I don't think I'm known as a cheerleader of this arbcom, probably far from it—but although we're only painting pictures here, if there were policy violations involved (IF—I'm not sayng their were) then they would specifically not be mitigated by volume of activity.I can well understand Bbb23's refusal to be micromanaged, if that was the case—it's an absolutely untenable position to put anyone, and absolutely impossible for anyone to accept. It would be odd, indeed, if anyone thought it would have another outcome than it didd. ——SN54129 14:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)