| Revision as of 20:43, 4 August 2009 editGiacomoReturned (talk | contribs)Rollbackers11,926 edits →Arbitration motion regarding Geogre 2← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:45, 13 January 2025 edit undoL235 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators27,366 editsm →Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators: edit additionTag: CD | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Front matter}} | <noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Front matter}}{{ArbCom navigation}} | ||
| <!-- Archive date of 10 days has been agreed amongst arbitrators and clerks. Do not change without discussion. --> | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive index | |||
| |mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive <#> | |||
| |leading_zeros=0 | |||
| |indexhere=yes | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 500k | |||
| |counter = 5 | |||
| | |
|counter = 52 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(10d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| '''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. | |||
| {{shortcut|WT:AC/N|WT:ACN}} | |||
| = Discussion of agenda = | |||
| ] | |||
| = Discussion of announcements = | |||
| == CheckUser and Oversight elections == | |||
| ''Earlier discussion: ]'' | |||
| Could the ArbCom publicize the next round of elections better? As it stands, the August announcement page has had 514 pageviews in total so far , which doesn't exactly bode well for a high turnout. (The February page, on the other hand, had 718 pageviews on its first day alone.) | |||
| Next time, please send a note to the mailing lists, or even add one of those super-controversial watchlist notices. - ] (]) 19:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Indeed, I never even knew these were going on until someone asked me if I had applied. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : ] <sup>]</sup> 21:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::It will be appropriate to announce the question/voting phase by watchlist, however; it meets the criteria of being an event of relevance to the entire editing community with a well-defined 'crowd control' mechanism. <font color="forestgreen">]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">]</font> 21:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Like Xeno, I didn't know about the elections until someone asked me if I'd applied. ] 21:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fortunately for you, they asked you prior to the close of the acceptance period =| –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 21:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm in a similar boat as Xeno; I found out about this election ''today'', and then only because it was brought up on a (private) mailing list. That said, I did put my name in back in March, though I haven't heard anything since. - ] (]) 21:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ←In regards to the watchlist notices, in the thread linked to at the top of this one, a member of the community had asked that the committee not use them. After reading it over again, it looks more like what they were asking was the ArbCom asked first next time and got consensus to add a notice to the watchlist announcements. I personally feel they were very helpful last time, and would support them being used again. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I have requested a watchlist notice for the election at ]. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 04:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The question period started earlier today now, and there will be a series of watchlist and noticeboards announcements soon.--] (]) 14:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Motion to establish secondary ArbCom mailing list == | |||
| ] | |||
| :Silly question, is the new mailing list archived? It would pretty much defeat the purpose of a list that doesn't include the involved party if as soon as the case is over they get to see all of the private discussion about themselves. People would feel no more free to submit evidence if they knew the person would see it in a month, as opposed to currently and arbs would feel no more free to comment on a colleague's behavior if they would see it in a week than if they would see it today. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 07:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The first priority is to set it up (last time we asked it took ages). The main purpose is not investigative but so the arb is on the same footing as the non-arb party. Whether or not it is archived is still under discussion: one route is having the option to delete some discussions from the archive but I don't yet know how technically feasible that is. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think relying on the system administrators to routinely delete archived messages is a good idea nor do I think such requests would be fulfilled. See ] for a (very) brief explanation. - ] (]) 18:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :1–Why now? Is this in response to any particular incident? 2–Why did the opposers oppose, if they wouldn't mind. ''÷]'' 19:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::WRT 1, almost certainly because of ]: Jimbo is a subscriber to arbcom-l. Can't help you WRT 2... ]‑] 19:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I opposed because of archival needed to be clarified first. In my opinion, knowing that the party under discussion might read the archive after the fact is a problem, and that had not been clarified by the time the motion passed. — ] <sup>]</sup> 10:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration motion regarding Geogre == | |||
| ] | |||
| :Thank you to the Committee for resolving this issue in a timely and conclusive manner. ] (]) 02:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::"''n a timely and conclusive manner''" — shameless hypocrisy. ] 11:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::This case was not handled well. We've done a disservice to a long-standing contributor. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 13:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::And to make it worse, the sock puppet policy "Administrators using a second account in a forbidden manner '''will''' be summarily de-sysopped" was only changed the other day from "'''may''' be summarily de-syssopped" as a result of this case. The motion summary makes it look like this was already policy, and no note to that effect is made. That's just plain rude to Geogre. --] (]) 14:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Will" is inaccurate because administrators who use socks in a forbidden manner might never get discovered. And, they might get a pass (unlike this case). "May" is entirely appropriate... Amending... –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 14:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ok, but when Arbs voted on "3.2) Administrators using a second account in a forbidden manner will be summarily de-sysopped, per the "Administrative sock puppets" section of the sock puppetry policy." That's an inaccurate statement of policy then isn't it? Shouldn't the motion be changed? --] (]) 14:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It's probably not worth bothering, for a few reasons. First, in general, if an admin is found socking, they're probably going to be subject to desysopping. Second, that was clearly the case here. Thirdly, in the rare event there are extenuating circumstances, or the socking wasn't enough to merit desysopping somehow, IAR allows us to ignore that bit as needed. As with most policy, "may" and "will" are almost synonymous here, for that last reason. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 14:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Oh, and fourth, Geogre is desysopped anyway, so the exact wording of the motion doesn't matter terribly much. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 14:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Actually it does - if Arbcom have 'clarified' a policy here, it has an effect on future cases, conduct and the policy itself. The rules need to be clear. The use of IAR to explain away 'exceptions' or 'mitigations' isn't very helpful in providing a good ruleset for the community. --] (]) 14:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Fine then, come up with a counter-scenario, where the use of abusive sockpupptry would likely NOT result in summary desysopping? I can certainly come up with valid use of alternate accounts by an admin, and even can imagine cases where an admin may use an undisclosed account, but this is clearly a different situation. The blatant use of an alternate account to votestack and give the illusion of two people in editting where they are clearly the same person is a major problem, and I cannot imagine that such a violation of community trust should go unchecked. --]''''']''''' 19:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Can you provide diffs of such abuses? I still haven't seen anything more than assertions. Where's the evidence? Please include diffs in your reply. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Did you not see ''anything'' that concerned you? ] 20:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I see that we have a vague ] policy that for no good reason allows people to operate multiple accounts without full disclosure. (My second account is ].) Geogre disclosed at least several times that he operated both accounts. This was not widely known, but one user was able to find the disclosures in about 5 minutes of looking. What great harm was caused by Geogre? Was he malicious or merely careless? Was he using his second account to harass people? It seems that the worst he did was have a lame edit war over an image of the ], but that happened two years ago. The reaction here seems over the top, as if it is some sort of score settling. This makes me feel uneasy. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::"I see that we have a vague ] policy that for no good reason allows people to operate multiple accounts without full disclosure." Some of us are trying to tighten up that language but there is one editor who is vociferously opposing any change, and is even accusing editors of bad faith for suggesting it. <b>] ] </b> 01:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::''"one user was able to find the disclosures in about 5 minutes of looking"'' - my response to that is . There may have been inadvertent disclosure (usually reverted or corrected immediately: , ), and rebuffs to questions asked (, ), and a consistent style used by both accounts that more people should have picked up on earlier, but there was in no way, shape or form the full disclosure that was required. What was required was . After all, it's not like Geogre didn't know how to . I'm aware of Geogre's concerns about what happened with that earlier alternate account's password, but he needs to follow that up and find out whether it is even possible (years later) to find out what happened there, rather than speculating. ] (]) 14:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Carcharoth, can you tell me whether Geogre was acting in bad faith, or if he may have just been careless or misunderstood policy? How many times was he warned about this (if any)? It seems like bannishing him from being an admin ever again is overly harsh. (The chance of passing RFA again is virtually zero--we all know it.) Perhaps a warning and a temporary desysop for emphasis might be considered. What's been done here seems excessively harsh. Maybe I am jaded because I encounter sock masters who do really bad stuff, rather than those who write featured articles while socking. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: Joopercoopers - the edit you refer to, made after this case closed, is accurate. The arbitration committee decide on desysop requests brought to them. They have over many years, almost always desysopped for serious socking by administrators, which was the prior wording. The ruling confirms this stating that admins who sock "will" be desysopped. That's worth noting in the policy, so that the few admins who try and sock know what Arbcom have stated their own stance, as the "final voice" on such cases and desysoppings, will be. The wording change was precise and accurate, from ''"risk being summarily de-sysopped"'' to ''"risk being summarily de-sysopped"''. That seems accurate, and significant enough to add to the wording lest admins be misled. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 05:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Actually, I think "risks being" is accurate. There are lots of editors, admins included, who have undisclosed alternate accounts. Many of them cross lines, whether intentionally or unintentionally. It is often only by chance that these are identified. Therefore it is a risk, but not an absolute, that inappropriate use of alternate accounts will be identified. ] (]) 05:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Enough! This has become a bore . When can we agree to stop savaging a dead bone? ] (]) 21:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Only once all the pith has been extracted, it would seem. ] (]) 23:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Being the biologist chap I am, I'm pretty sure that pith doesn't apply to bones, only to vascular plants. --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 23:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: or even 2. as a trans verb - or, Beauty is Truth. ] (]) 23:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Well met. --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 01:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration motion regarding Geogre 2 == | |||
| ] | |||
| :I really don't want to be a jerk here, but Geogre's user page still indicates that he is an administrator. I would say something on his talkpage but I have been savagely bitten by him before and have no interest in sticking my face in a blender. Could someone have a word, please? Non-admins (usually new users) are regularly admonished for claiming they are admins, and this seems to fit within that general principle, as any user unaware of the history who visits his page would think he is. → ] ]<small> 17:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::If you would like to avoid drama, as suggested by your edit summary, why don't you email an arbitrator instead of posting publicly? Most likely Geogre hasn't thought to remove the template. Feel free to remove my comment if you decide to remove yours. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Because in my experience and that of others emails to ArbCom fall into a black hole and never resurface. → ] ]<small> 18:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::Also note they haven't edited since the motions passed. What's the rush? –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 18:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I find E-mails to arbcom are very swiftly seized upon, anyay I hope this edit satisfies you needs Roux - any other form of ritual humiliation you would like to see? Him posing naked in the snow with a feather on his head perhaps? He seems not not be editing so perhaps the aims of certain people have been acheived. This was a shabby affair and Misplaced Pages at its worst - no Durova, don't you dare comment! ] (]) 18:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There was no rush, and this had nothing to do with any sort of ritual humiliation, so you can take your usual assumption of ulterior motives and do something else with it. As I stated, the concern is new users or those unfamiliar with history thinking he is currently an admin. Here's the thing, Giano: some of us state very clearly exactly why we are doing something. I am one of those people. → ] ]<small> 18:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::I never thought otherwise Roux. I'm sure the other millions watching this page agree with me on that. Your motives were of the highest order. ] (]) 20:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Amendment regarding ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| It's better, but I was rather critical of 9.2 and 13 being included as amendments, and I even said as much in my statement. I think this case shows that AC needs a layman advisory committee to act as a check on AC regarding sanctions so we don't get overly harsh sanctions like what was originally passed. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration Committee motion regarding Aitias administrator permissions == | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| *As much as I hate endorsing the desysop of a longstanding and valued contributor, Aitias has a history of questionable judgment and was previously given another chance. I was surprised when ArbCom opted not to desysop last time, and now there isn't much choice. ] (]) 08:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| ==Motion amending Ryulong Arbitration case regarding Mythdon== | |||
| == Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators == | |||
| *''']''' | |||
| : ]<!-- ] (]) 23:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
| I wish this motion hadn't passed. It destroys quite a bit of what I need to do. —<font color="green">]</font> (<font color="teal">]</font> • <font color="teal">]</font>) 15:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Good! I'm glad that you did this. --] (]) 02:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The consensus seems to be that 'what you need to do' is disruptive. Thus the motion passing. → ] ]<small> 15:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *I'd like to thank the Committee for its action here. The Committee's workflow challenges have long been a substantial concern and this could be a meaningful step in addressing them. When the Committee appoints the coordinating arbitrator(s), I would ask that the Committee announce who those arbitrators are; I think it would help the community (e.g., at ACE) to know who might be spending extra time on coordination efforts and may have less time for other arbitrator tasks. {{pb}} I also appreciate arbitrator comments such as ] by {{U|Daniel}}, which suggest that if this motion is eventually seen as insufficient, the Committee will reconsider Motion 1. I certainly hope that the Committee will continue actively exploring ways to deliver workflow improvements that help arbs increase capacity and spend time resolving substantive issues. Best, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 22:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *This was apparently an internal motion. Can we have the vote tally (names) posted with the announcement and on the case page please? ] 16:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:Also, as the author of the language in this motion, let me make one suggestion as to implementation. In executing the first bullet point ({{tqq|1=Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters}}), I strongly urge the coordinating arbitrator to assign an ID to each non-spam communication, akin to the ticket number in a VRTS thread. (Whether and how to group related threads or emails together is a question on which I'll defer.) {{pb}} When I was on the committee, many of the balls we dropped had not gotten to the voting stage or even the "this is a problem we've decided to deal with" stage. Instead, they were stray emails that requested or alerted the committee to possible action that were then not followed up upon. Assigning identifiers allows the coordinating arbitrators to say not only "Votes are needed on matters X, Y, and Z" (on which there is already a proposed action or vote), but also "Threads 101, 102, 103, 104, and 105 need triage and initial action." in the tracking function. Best, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see, it was public . ] 17:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:45, 13 January 2025
Shortcuts
|
 Archives |
|
Index 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. |
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
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.
Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators
- Good! I'm glad that you did this. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like to thank the Committee for its action here. The Committee's workflow challenges have long been a substantial concern and this could be a meaningful step in addressing them. When the Committee appoints the coordinating arbitrator(s), I would ask that the Committee announce who those arbitrators are; I think it would help the community (e.g., at ACE) to know who might be spending extra time on coordination efforts and may have less time for other arbitrator tasks. I also appreciate arbitrator comments such as this one by Daniel, which suggest that if this motion is eventually seen as insufficient, the Committee will reconsider Motion 1. I certainly hope that the Committee will continue actively exploring ways to deliver workflow improvements that help arbs increase capacity and spend time resolving substantive issues. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, as the author of the language in this motion, let me make one suggestion as to implementation. In executing the first bullet point (
Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters
), I strongly urge the coordinating arbitrator to assign an ID to each non-spam communication, akin to the ticket number in a VRTS thread. (Whether and how to group related threads or emails together is a question on which I'll defer.) When I was on the committee, many of the balls we dropped had not gotten to the voting stage or even the "this is a problem we've decided to deal with" stage. Instead, they were stray emails that requested or alerted the committee to possible action that were then not followed up upon. Assigning identifiers allows the coordinating arbitrators to say not only "Votes are needed on matters X, Y, and Z" (on which there is already a proposed action or vote), but also "Threads 101, 102, 103, 104, and 105 need triage and initial action." in the tracking function. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, as the author of the language in this motion, let me make one suggestion as to implementation. In executing the first bullet point (