Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia 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.

Conclusion of CheckUser consultation and change to the Oversight team, April 2025

[edit]
Original announcement
  • I hope there were actually the votes to confer the user right after the functionary consultation before you all decided to run this back in public knowing it was going to fail. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment implies that the arbs knew this was going to fail before seeking comments from the community. One other editor was put forward for functionary consultation at the same time as Tamzin but community comments were not sought for them. This strongly suggests that your implication was wrong and that this was actually a genuine consultation. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We conducted a straw poll internally before the public consultation to ensure that the nomination wasn't doomed at that point. Several arbs wanted the public consultation to help make up their minds. It's worth noting that a 75% majority is required for new functionary appointments so it only takes a very small number of opposes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    75%? [citation needed] is this a self-imposed threshold that the sitting committee decided upon, or is there some policy this is pulling from? While the global checkuser policy calls for "at least 70%–80%" (and also at least 25 voters) - that applies to community elections, not appointments by qualified arbitration committees. — xaosflux Talk 12:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is self-imposed by tradition within the committee -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's now codified in ArbCom procedure. Sdrqaz probably knows the chapter and verse to save me hunting for the link. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The threshold is 70% and that has been the case since 2016; it is codified in internal procedures, so I can't link it, sorry. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be useful to state this in the public procedures document (i.e. WP:AC/P). About all that's there is that Access to CheckUser and Oversight permissions is given sparingly; the vast majority of that section is about how rights are removed. I've previously seen the appointment threshold stated as a supermajority, but that can mean almost anything. RoySmith (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The technical term in internal procedures is soooooopermajority.[FBDB] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that committee procedures are subject to change at anytime by a majority of the current committee volunteers. — xaosflux Talk 13:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They are, but this has been practice for some years to my knowledge. The addition to the procedures was recent (last year I think) but codifies an existing practice. The suggestion of making this clearer is a good one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would find it disappointing if there was a divisive change relying on a majority vote rather than consensus to change a super majority requirement. I have every faith in this committee to make appropriate changes (if there are any) in a way for both the committee's functioning and for community expectations. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. — xaosflux Talk 13:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As previously stated, time was given to see whether there were inconvertible opposes. We didn't know that it wasn't going to pass, and if we did, we wouldn't have referred the candidacy to the Community. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you to the Committee for considering this application, and especially to Sdrqaz for (at least on the side I could see) coördinating the process. I applied a bit earlier than I would have in an ideal world, because I knew I'd be pretty busy starting in mid-to-late April, and wanted to be able to give an application my undivided (well, less divided) attention. Evidently, based on what I was told in Sdrqaz' very considerate decline letter, I ought to have spent more time settling back into adminship; I'll keep that in mind should I choose to run again someday. The only outcome I would have been upset with is if the request had been declined, as one commenter suggested it be, for my past criticism of ArbCom's mishandling of a case; and I gather that this was not what happened, so I have nothing to convey but gratitude for the Committee taking the time to consider this.
    The only thing that I wish would've been done differently here is for the consultation announcement to have included my name and a boldfaced link. That's not me supposing that it would have gone better; rather, that it would have either gone better or more decisively worse. Even setting aside the direct applicability to CU appointment, as an admin I take very seriously the feedback I get from community members, and I would rather be criticized by a greater number of people than have to wonder how much weight I should give to a small number of comments. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've floated the idea of doing the consultations at AC/N for the purpose of getting more eyes and participation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's nice of you to say ; I think that other members' contributions also helped the process.
    On suggested improvements, I'm sympathetic because I found RfA more enjoyable than ACE simply because there are fewer unknowns at the end: all votes have reasons attached to them, and I don't have to guess why people have voted the way that they have. However, I worry that a more "personalised" advertisement and consultation may lead to a more confrontational process, with people more likely to participate due to grudges rather than a civic desire to aid the appointments process (naïveté, perhaps). The buck ultimately stops with the Committee to take responsibility for a candidacy, so there may be diminishing returns when focusing on the numerical breakdown of consultation comments compared to looking at the strength of the arguments. This is certainly an interesting perspective, so I will have to think about it further. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's entirely fair to dismiss legitimate concerns as "grudges". People participating in such a process do so out of a genuine "civic desire", not because they hate other editors. For example, I would have rather stayed away from all this, but I felt like it was my duty to speak up, especially since the events I brought up were so recent. Obviously my perspective is not universal (and my judgement may be tainted by my personal interactions), but it is important to have such information available for others to see in order to make an informed choice. What's a dealbreaker for one person is not for someone else, but being a functionary is a big deal. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't referring to this consultation; I was referring to the possible consequences of advertising something as a "CheckUser consultation" vs a "consultation on User:X". Sdrqaz (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that, to the contrary, a consultation that is advertised but only subtly will tend to attract people with strong feelings on the candidate, and since generic "support" comments are disfavored, this makes the current system more likely to garner grudge-based opposes than a better-advertised one. I'm not going to accuse anyone of doing anything based on a grudge, since a negative past personal interaction is a valid reason to oppose, but objectively, four of the seven opposes at my request were based on such interactions, with limited discussion by others as to the merits of those criticisms, which makes it hard to infer from that whether those concerns are shared by the community. I think that's unfair both to the candidate and to the person opposing.
    Honestly, I think the process should be either more like RfA or less. For "more", I picture something with a proper watchlistnotice advertisement, but still limiting !votes to a few hundred words and maybe prohibiting replies to !votes by anyone but arbs, clerks, and the candidate. For "less", I picture something like the current process except that comments are all sent privately to ArbCom, and questions are sent to ArbCom and then posted by an arb if they are appropriate. But those are just rough thoughts. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 02:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd generally be in favour of more transparency rather than less, but that's just me. I do think a watchlist notification is a decent idea that would likely garner further participation. If this is implemented, the notification should probably include some information about what exactly it means to be a CheckUser or functionary roles in general, as these perms tend to have a bit more mystique attached to them. I think greater participation is a good idea precisely because these permissions are on a different level of importance than say the ability to delete pages or block vandals and trust is an even more important factor. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. When the Committee tried something similar to what you initially suggested, participation was high, but it's hard to tell whether that was because of the way it was advertised or because of confounding factors (time since last CU/OS consultation, personal popularity etc) – generic supports were discouraged then, but they still happened anyways. I also know that there are members who have strong feelings on how the consultations should be advertised, so I'm not sure whether a significantly-different consensual point along that RfA "more–less" spectrum can be found, apart from maybe posting at CENT (which, to be blunt, anyone can do and have done). Sdrqaz (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think its fair to say that the reasons for commenting on a candidacy for functionary (and similar advanced roles) can be split into a few basic types:
    • Grudge-holders, axe-grinders, ideological opponents - someone comes to leave a bad comment because they dislike the candidate and/or their views. Almost always recommend/vote against the candidate.
    • Fan clubs, ideological colleagues, enablers - someone comes to leave a positive comment because they are fans of the candidate and/or their views. Almost always recommend/vote for the candidate.
    • Chroniclers - people who are familiar with the candidate who come to relate their experiences (good and/or bad) with the main goal of providing information so judgements can be informed ones. Frequently recommend and/or vote, but usually will be a mix of for and against
    • Students - Those who have little to no prior experience of the candidate but who read what others write and/or do their own research with a (mostly) open mind and share what they've learned. Sometimes recommend and/or vote, but usually with be a mix of for and against
    • Dutiful citizens - those who have little to no prior experience of the candidate but feel it is their duty to comment on things like this, whether they've read or researched anything or not. Recommendations and/or votes can be anywhere on the map.
    The ideal is to attract as many Chroniclers and Students as possible while attracting as few Grudge-holders and Fan clubs as possible (Dutiful citizens are generally not a significant positive or negative). I think Sdrqaz's thinking is that making the notifications more personal could attract more of both grudge-holders and fan clubs but relatively fewer Students and Chroniclers, making the process generally more confrontational but without significantly increasing the value of the comments. Thryduulf (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a useful framing. I would also encourage the Committee to think about what moving the consultations to this page might do in terms of those different categories. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed arbitration motions regarding Tinucherian

[edit]
Original announcement
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=1285917730"