| Wikipedia talk:Review Board Archives |
At this time, the proposal and the discussions have been archived. I am in the process of rereading the totality of the past discussion to make certain that all the expressed concerns have been addressed adequately, with formal voting by ArbCom to follow on adoption. — Coren (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Woah, coren, woah. "Formal arbcom voting" is not how we make policy here - it is made by consensus. And your analysis of the results seems to ignore one open question: "should there be a board?". It seems to me, that if that question is asked - then the community has certainly not agreed that there should. This proposal should be marked as rejected, although someone is free to try again with another one.--
Scott Mac (Doc) 17:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Both sending to ArbCom and marking as rejected are premature courses of action at this point. Let the authors revise it and then put the revised version out there for discussion.
Skomorokh 18:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Further discussion is fine. It is conceivable that consensus may be reached (even I could be persuaded). But if arbcom are terminating the discussion, then it should be noted that at the end of the community discussion, there was no community consensus for the proposal - which is the current state of affairs.--
Scott Mac (Doc) 18:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- An absence of consensus in favour of a proposal at a given time is not equivalent to rejection. Nor is archiving talk "terminating the discussion" - I think you are looking at this quite uncharitably. Marking as rejected effectively kills a proposal and puts a bad light on all similar proposals. If there is a version of this proposal that is acceptable to the community, how does the project benefit from rendering it stillborn? This proposal, if implemented, would be a significant change to the project, but leaving it marked "proposed" changes nothing. In summary, I don't see any benefit from marking this rejected, and a significant possible benefit from marking it proposed. Skomorokh 18:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Further discussion is fine. It is conceivable that consensus may be reached (even I could be persuaded). But if arbcom are terminating the discussion, then it should be noted that at the end of the community discussion, there was no community consensus for the proposal - which is the current state of affairs.--
Scott Mac (Doc) 18:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Both sending to ArbCom and marking as rejected are premature courses of action at this point. Let the authors revise it and then put the revised version out there for discussion.
Skomorokh 18:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've removed the "should there be..." point below. I dislike trying to push things around but, strictly speaking, the authority for reviewing CU and OS actions is entirely, and exclusively, the committee's; and if we intend to delegate that authority to a group of users picked jointly by the community and ArbCom, that would be strictly ArbCom's decision. Community input into how that is done is welcome, and sought, and even a cursory inspection of the talk page archive will show that a great deal of listening has taken place. — Coren (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Coren, the point of this discussion was to decide whether the authority for reviewing CU should remain entirely and exclusively the committee's. We can't close the discussion by begging the question.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 21:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's a legitimate, but entirely separate question, and one which lies far beyond the scope of this proposal of a method to delegate some of that authority which currently does rest with the committee. The fact of the matter is, ArbCom is currently tasked with overseeing the use of those tools; and this discussion was never meant to change that state of fact (and I would expect it to be very difficult to do in practice, given the obvious difficulty in reaching concensus). In the meantime, and regardless of such discussion, ArbCom wants to delegate that task to a different group to improve transparency and efficiency. — Coren (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Coren, the point of this discussion was to decide whether the authority for reviewing CU should remain entirely and exclusively the committee's. We can't close the discussion by begging the question.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 21:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- What did you intend this proposal to accomplish, if not the creation of a board to review CU complaints?
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 21:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand your question; of course that is the intent. You're asking the question "should ArbCom be the group with the authority and responsibility to oversee use of checkuser and oversight in the first place?". I'm not attempting to answer that question, simply noticing that it does in fact currently have it. This proposal is simply delegating that authority. — Coren (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- What did you intend this proposal to accomplish, if not the creation of a board to review CU complaints?
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 21:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Coren, as I've said before, arbcom can delegate its authority to anyone it likes. Go do it - pick people you trust and appoint them. However, it cannot create a community election process without the consent of the community; a fact that it implicitly recognised when it asked the community for consent. It is no use saying "we need more accountability" and then dictating how the community shall do it - whether they like it or not. The internal workings of arbcom are your prerogative to amend, but if you want to create a new political bureaucracy which will suck in time and effort, then you really do need to check that the wider community wants it, and doesn't want to resist per WP:CREEP and WP:NOT (a bureaucracy). There is a great irony that an arbcom which is supposedly more sensitive to community concerns is willing to grab policy-making power from the community. There is also an irony that we elected you and gave you the power to police checkusers (or to delegate that power), but now you are here insisting that we elect someone else because we don't trust you to delegate. Well, maybe we don't trust anyone else we might elect more than we trust you. And if you don't think we should be trusting you, then you should resign. I do believe arbcom has too much to do, and should delegate. But because I think you've got too much to do I don't want to give you policy making power on top of that, particularly when you are declaring yourselves unfit to do the job of delegating we entrusted you with. The first question in the misguided poll was "Do you support the creation of a board to review Check User and Oversight use as defined here?" [1]. A proposition which certainly has nothing approaching community consensus. So, please listen.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 22:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- That question was added by Deacon of Pndapetzim, but was never in fact open. I really, really can't figure out where you are trying to head with your opposition here; you acknowledge that we could just pick editors and give them the role, yet balk at allowing the community a voice in the matter? You're actually in favor of ArbCom ruling by fiat rather than consult the community? —
Coren
(talk) 23:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed it was. I added it, as I noticed the other questions were Loaded questions in assuming acceptance of the board existed already. This was not to derail the proposal though, but rather to make it clear whether it was going forward with or without wider community approval. I'm fully aware arbcom can go ahead with this against the opposition of almost anyone except Jimbo Wales. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 23:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Coren, are you just playing dumb here? You are saying you want community input in electing editors, yet you are, in the same breath, denying the community any input in whether to have an election. You don't give a toss about getting community consent for this new energy-sucking process, and you are not giving that toss in the name of "getting community input"? Yes, I utterly object in principle to a bureaucratic process-driven politically charged election, with all the drama it entails simply because you folk can't trust yourselves to pick seven reasonable people and tell them to do a job! If election give legitimacy and community input, then I point out that we just elected you. You are the people the community trust to do the job - so please do it. And if you think we'd better elect a different group of people, then at least have the courtesy to ask us if we want to do that, or if we rather you simply exercised the mandate you have. We have a status-quo here, if you want to change it dramatically - get a consensus. You have a mandate to oversee checkusers (or to delegate) you have no mandate to impose more distracting wikipolitical creep, which is against the spirit of WP:NOT and WP:CREEP, process without our consent.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 23:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
(undent) Allow me to be blunt here: I saw 14 oppositions, 10 of which were opposition to process for the sake of opposition to process, two that were clearly opposition to a misunderstanding of what the board would be, and two that were based on the mistaken presumption that the ombudsman commission already did this. Not only is this hardly opposition from the community at large, but it's not particularly compelling. WP:BURO is about not burdening Wikipedia with unneeded bureaucracy, not about avoiding all processes for the sake of avoiding process. Given that I count at least 40-odd people who explicitly support the move in one form or another (even if there were point of contention on some of the details of implementation), the position against allowing the community to pick who would sit on that board is in a minority. You are, and will remain, strictly allowed to ignore any community selection process— and from your point of view the end result will remain strictly equivalent to ArbCom having simply picked. However, the people who do care about who sit on the board will be able to be heard, and have input in the process. — Coren (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think you are confusing the reasons for the opposition, or else purposely misrepresenting them in order to undermine it. I for my part was fully clear on what the ombudsman's role was (after it was cleared at least), but JzG's point stands still (this job is partially covered) and other reasons were given there and elsewhere on the page. The arbcom can go ahead with it if it chooses, and it can choose to rubbish the opposition if it decides doing so is in its interest, but if later it all looks pointless, pear-shaped or the RB drifts into other roles, or even if it goes very well, those oppose votes will still be there to said "we opposed this" or "we supported" and you overruled us or went with us. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 23:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Coren, I think you saw what you wanted, just as you asked only the questions you wanted. "Loaded" is the right analysis. But now, at least you are bothering to look at what people are saying (despite your contention that their views are irrelevant). I'm going to drop it now, because it is obvious that this was stitched up from the beginning on a secret arbcom wiki. However, I simply wish to record my dismay and dissent not just to your decision, but to the method and high-handedness which have accompanied it. You will do as you please with the powers you have granted yourself.--
Scott Mac (Doc) 23:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that the Committee is going to own and operate this Review Board. If the community wants a CU/Oversight audit/review that is more independent than this one appears to be, then someone else is going to have to propose it and get it passed by community consensus. Cla68 ( talk) 23:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Coren, I think you saw what you wanted, just as you asked only the questions you wanted. "Loaded" is the right analysis. But now, at least you are bothering to look at what people are saying (despite your contention that their views are irrelevant). I'm going to drop it now, because it is obvious that this was stitched up from the beginning on a secret arbcom wiki. However, I simply wish to record my dismay and dissent not just to your decision, but to the method and high-handedness which have accompanied it. You will do as you please with the powers you have granted yourself.--
Scott Mac (Doc) 23:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Points that have been left relatively open
Selection method for members of the pool from which ArbCom will make appointments
- Opinions are split between a RfA-like process and first-past-the-post elections.
Whether, and how long, should former CU/OS be disqualified
- Intervals from none to one year have been put forth.
Other questions raised in the poll
Does the community support a Review Board?
- I see no consensus on this question. However, Coren disagrees (see his remarks above). I'd be interested in hearing other dispassionate analysis. Arbcom may decide not to care about consensus here (see Coren's remarks) but I'm rather dismayed that my attempt to have this analysed have simply been removed. I simply ask others, Do you view this result as constituting a clear community consensus for this to proceed?-- Scott Mac (Doc) 12:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes and no. Yes, there is consensus for ArbCom to get something done - and no, that snapshot doesn't demonstrate it. This has been a poorly advertised page plagued with various problems, but the extent to which the community believe some sort of independent body should be overseeing oversight can be drawn from the response to Thatcher's essay, the election results themselves, various complaints throughout the previous year, and comments in the archives. We've seen that these surveys tend to be flawed snapshots: compare the initial RFC on Checkuser appointments to the current hooplah now that the election is poised to start. It is my honest belief that on balance, the community is in favor of ArbCom dealing with the CU/OS oversight situation in a new way.
- The consensus is found in the discussion - not by counting votes. People have made suggestions on how the board should run while having voted "no" - some people have showed up to ask without voting at all. Most of the voted objections are based on a misunderstanding of the abilities of the ombudsman's commission or some complaint about bureaucracy - the solution is not to trash the process, but to address the concerns, to find the consensus opinion in between.
- There is an additional problem: say we chalk this up as "ArbCom doesn't have community consensus way of fixing the problem." Are we ever going to find a process that has full throated community support at every step of the way? Maybe, but probably not - instead we could go through months of hand wringing while we try to find the best process (or something that works similar but doesn't look like a bureaucracy) - while the genuine consensus of Wikipedians is that something should be done, or at least it is in my analysis.
- At the end of the day, ArbCom was elected by the community - and its up to them what they want to do. If this exists as a delegation of their power, we have to always remember that the community elected their arbitrators - and it is the new arbitrators that are providing the thrust of the changes. The community has spoken in pretty much the only kind of vote on Wikipedia that genuinely gets wide attention.--
Tznkai (
talk) 14:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I completely agree that arbcom have the power and mandate both to oversee checkuser and/or to delegate. I also agree that there is a consensus that a new group should be given the task. However, I think that if you want to create an election process with attendant bureaucracy, which will involve a great deal of community attention and effort, then you need more than surmises from a badly advertised discussion. I've yet to see any argument against arbcom simply appointing a group of delegates (which they can do tomorrow) and then, if necessary, reviewing the mechanism for selection at a later date once we know what it is we have, and how significant (or otherwise) it turns out to be.--
Scott Mac (Doc) 14:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- It might damage the effectiveness of the panel. Any auditing group needs the confidence of the community (although a vote isn't the only way to do it) - and asking for community voice and suddenly saying "You know what? Nevermind." doesn't engender that community confidence usually. I do agree that this was poorly advertised before it was moved into a snap poll - still not sure why or how that happened. At the end of the day though, I assure you, no matter how much disagreement with the bureaucracy or the voting method, people will still vote. Not sure what that says exactly, but it definitely says something about the way the polity operates.-- Tznkai ( talk) 14:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I completely agree that arbcom have the power and mandate both to oversee checkuser and/or to delegate. I also agree that there is a consensus that a new group should be given the task. However, I think that if you want to create an election process with attendant bureaucracy, which will involve a great deal of community attention and effort, then you need more than surmises from a badly advertised discussion. I've yet to see any argument against arbcom simply appointing a group of delegates (which they can do tomorrow) and then, if necessary, reviewing the mechanism for selection at a later date once we know what it is we have, and how significant (or otherwise) it turns out to be.--
Scott Mac (Doc) 14:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Points that have been resolved
- Members should be allowed to rerun any checkuser to examine the results
- Members should have access to all relevant mailing lists
- What powers if any does the panel have?
- Who is the panel responsible to?
- If there are complaints about the board, who controls them?
- What are their established standards?
- How public does the audit process need to be?
Anything else?-- Tznkai ( talk) 23:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, those questions should be answered in the policy itself; if they are not it's a bug that needs fixing. :-) The intent, at this time, being (in order):
- Investigate allegations of abuse, and keep an eye out for problematic use of the tools;
- Ultimately, ArbCom, as they exist as a delegation of their authority
- ArbCom again, although there is provision for self-policing
- The current, existing policy on use of checkuser and oversight, as well as the Foundation privacy policy
- "As much as possible without breaching privacy"; this is hard to write down in advance, and I expect the board itself will be able to create a working procedure to settle this quickly enough.
— Coren (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood slightly. As the proposal stands, the audit panel has no procedural powers besides formal reprimands and recommendations. If thats ok, thats ok, but thats not the only option. I've proposed giving the panel the power to remove permissions themselves on a unanimous vote, as well as the ability to issue temporary suspension orders while they investigated and there was a little vague support for the idea that the panel should have such powers, and no opposition - but mostly no discussion. This is something that I think should be cleared up ASAP for the public before the proposal goes to committee vote.
- In addition, the standards I meant are internal to the audit panel. Frankly, I think the panel should be held to higher standards of conduct than any body or person is currently held to. This is not a position where we can accept people being dicks, whatever their excuses.
- Finally, and I accept this will be touch and go, where are panel votes going to be? Are they going to get their own wiki? Vote on a new e-mail list? Vote on functionaries-en-l (will they be posting or only reading members on that list?) Some of these things will have to be hammered out by the panel in its early days, but some of it should be hammered out now.--
Tznkai (
talk) 23:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed; note that at this point, and for this purpose, I'm specifically giving my personal opinion on the matter.
- I don't know if it would be wise, this early, to directly grant the power to remove bits to the board. The concept is new, and its implementation will remain in flux for some time. What I can tell you is that the committee will take the recommendations of the board seriously and is very unlikely to not follow up a request to remove the bits.
- I'm not opposed, in principle, to granting this directly to the board; I'm just uncertain that "bundling" that with the initial creation of the board is a good idea (but I remain open to be convinced, and the other arbs may well favor doing this direct delegation immediately).
- As for the internal standards, I agree they should be the highest possible— but I'm uncertain how we could codify this beyond the immense care I expect both the community and ArbCom will display during the selection process. Are you suggesting a specific behavioral code we should expand on?
- As for where the panel votes will take place, that's a question I was specifically leaving to the board itself. The members will have been selected for their judgment, after all, and I expect that some workable compromise between openness and privacy can be crafted out of both community expectations and "best practice". Personally, I would tend to expect most initial votes to be private with results posted publicly; the very fact that an investigation has taken place could well disclose information that should have been kept private. But that's hard enough a question that I don't think we can reasonably answer if we're not sitting on the front lines ourselves.
- —
Coren
(talk) 00:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I expect that all the panel members selected will be deeply ethical people - and if they're not we've got a problem - but as a matter of best practice I think that we should establish upfront what standards members will be held up against (say, by arbcom in the event of a case). Unlike permissions, panel members need to have a good work output, significant diplomatic skills and full public confidence, and I think that should be set in stone.--
Tznkai (
talk) 02:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm certainly all ears; do you have specific points you'd like covered, or do you think that simply stating those expectations in the policy grounds them sufficiently? Right now, the policy states "Board members are expected to be diligent, respectful, and proper at all times.", which I admit is more of a guideline than specific rules to follow... but I'm not entirely certain how that could be cemented without delving into a long code of behavior. —
Coren
(talk) 04:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have some ideas, but before I forget I want to get back to empowering the panel for a moment. We've got two basic issues here: one, Audit Panel will have jurisdiction over arbiters which is one reason for increased independence of bit removal. Two, and more pressingly, if the auditors discover that a CU is under reasonable suspicion of causing harm, the audit panel needs the power to compel the user to suspend their privileges instead of reporting out to ArbCom, and waiting for arbcom to vote, before then proceeding to a full audit, which reports back out to arbcom again. While that procedural mess can be fixed slightly, having to go to ArbCom for suspension will always add more potential problems - its best that such temporary measures be done by the investigating body immediately.-- Tznkai ( talk) 04:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm certainly all ears; do you have specific points you'd like covered, or do you think that simply stating those expectations in the policy grounds them sufficiently? Right now, the policy states "Board members are expected to be diligent, respectful, and proper at all times.", which I admit is more of a guideline than specific rules to follow... but I'm not entirely certain how that could be cemented without delving into a long code of behavior. —
Coren
(talk) 04:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- I expect that all the panel members selected will be deeply ethical people - and if they're not we've got a problem - but as a matter of best practice I think that we should establish upfront what standards members will be held up against (say, by arbcom in the event of a case). Unlike permissions, panel members need to have a good work output, significant diplomatic skills and full public confidence, and I think that should be set in stone.--
Tznkai (
talk) 02:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed; note that at this point, and for this purpose, I'm specifically giving my personal opinion on the matter.
(undent) To be honest, I'd be wary of giving the board the power to immediately suspend or revoke privileges before their operating procedures, internal functionning, and some period of "burn-in" has been completed; not to say that the independence and teeth this would give it wouldn't be desirable in the long run. I agree that this means that, until then, it adds a bit of delay— but I would also expect that cases so egregious as to need emergency action should be thankfully very rare and ArbCom could deal with them swiftly. Cases which involve an Arb could be taken to Jimbo for swift action if needed.
I'm quite certain it'll take some months at least before community expectations, the genuine workload, and the complexity of their task is fully understood; that alone should speak against opening up the killswitch too early.
It's an issue that I'd be more than willing to revisit, say, six months hence— and it's likely that, at that time, I'd be comfortable with handing the big red button to the board. — Coren (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I've removed this bit as unnecessary - the principle may have merit, but it doesn't really work for me in context - I'm still chewing over much of the above, fwiw..... Privatemusings ( talk) 04:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- All policies and major guidelines should be edited with caution. In the case of this one, it relates to Foundation principles and fiduciary responsibilities that individual editors and the English Wikipedia community cannot alter; hence the caution.
Risker (
talk) 04:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- heh... I reckon biographies should probably be edited with caution too.... and probably articles in general actually :-) - wiki editors not being able to change the laws of the universe rarely seems much of an impediment, I've noticed - but I totally get where you're coming from, Risk... it's just 'not very wiki' in my view... (obviously) I won't repeat the edit or anything... dunno what's happening with this really.. but arbcom creating policy-by-fiat is an interesting direction... p'raps I could persuade you to ask the dev.s to implement flagged revisions too? cheers,
Privatemusings (
talk) 07:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think you'll find that most (all?) of the arbs that have spoken up in that particular discussion have done so in favor of the feature; the difference lies in the fact that flagged revision is hardly a simple delegation from current ArbCom responsibilities. —
Coren
(talk) 13:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Creating a politically-charged second round of elections is hardly "simple delegation from current ArbCom responsibilities". A "simple delegation" is where you simply delegate.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 13:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think you'll find that most (all?) of the arbs that have spoken up in that particular discussion have done so in favor of the feature; the difference lies in the fact that flagged revision is hardly a simple delegation from current ArbCom responsibilities. —
Coren
(talk) 13:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- heh... I reckon biographies should probably be edited with caution too.... and probably articles in general actually :-) - wiki editors not being able to change the laws of the universe rarely seems much of an impediment, I've noticed - but I totally get where you're coming from, Risk... it's just 'not very wiki' in my view... (obviously) I won't repeat the edit or anything... dunno what's happening with this really.. but arbcom creating policy-by-fiat is an interesting direction... p'raps I could persuade you to ask the dev.s to implement flagged revisions too? cheers,
Privatemusings (
talk) 07:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
This page and the archive illustrate that this proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline,, the very creation of the board, will not achieve consensus and will not be created by community impetus. Arbcom are free to come up with it on the basis of their own authority, but should now do so explicitly or else drop the matter. I think after this time, as the discussion has effectively died down with more opposition than favour, Scott's insertion of the failure tag is justified. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 23:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The following was posted on User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim
- Please do not place a rejected tag on this again; at this time, the policy is being examined by the committee. — Coren (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
In response, Coren, this is tagged as a community proposal. It has failed to get consensus by this means. If Arbcom wish to create this body by means of their own power, that's fine, but then it's not a community proposal and shouldn't be tagged as such. It would seem in the context that a new template needs created for this and other future internal Arbcom proceedings, or if Arbcom wish to advance a later proposal, then {{Draft proposal}} might be better. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 23:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, you are probably right that a better, more descriptive template might be better suited. Imma going to make one just now. — Coren (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've just placed a reasonable first draft of a more accurate template,
{{ Arbcom proposed}}. Chances are the wording there could use some tweaking, though. — Coren (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)- Yup, to indicate that policy requires consensus. So tweeked.--
Scott Mac (Doc) 13:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, it does not; the point of that template is to distinguish from the normal case where it does, not to make it a copy of {{ proposed}}. — Coren (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Since you are insisting on a template which implies an unfettered power for arbcom to create policy, I've sent it to [
TfD]--
Scott Mac (Doc) 17:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- after some discussion, the wording of the template has been altered - I think it now fits better the intended use as described at the deletion discussion - however it no longer fits here with the current wording. This proposal quite clearly isn't part of the arbitration policy in my view.
Privatemusings (
talk) 02:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think that is a problem of language - not of anything else.--
Tznkai (
talk) 13:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm frankly not clear what the antecedent of the word "that" is in Tznkai's comment.
- That said, I think the function of "Investigating allegations related to misuse of checkuser or oversight" is within the remit of Arbcomm policy, specifically "The arbitrators reserve the right to hear or not hear any dispute, at their discretion." On the other hand "Monitoring checkuser and oversight compliance with the WMF's checkuser and oversight policies," does not seem to find any support in the ratified Arbcomm policy
[2], unless we say that there is a longstanding dispute about routine use of the tools. I find it a stretch, but one I would not choose to oppose.
GRBerry 21:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- What I was trying to say is that the thrust of the proposal - a body that oversees CheckUsers and Oversighters is within the remit of the committee, and how well it fits the template which refers to a modification to arbitration policy is a problem of semantics, not of conception. You bring up a good point though - ArbCom's relationship to the WMF is, from where I sit anyway, poorly defined.-- Tznkai ( talk) 22:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think that is a problem of language - not of anything else.--
Tznkai (
talk) 13:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- after some discussion, the wording of the template has been altered - I think it now fits better the intended use as described at the deletion discussion - however it no longer fits here with the current wording. This proposal quite clearly isn't part of the arbitration policy in my view.
Privatemusings (
talk) 02:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yup, to indicate that policy requires consensus. So tweeked.--
Scott Mac (Doc) 13:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I see Coren put the tag back, citing the opinion of the committee that this really is a 'tentative modification to the arbitration policy'. Heh... I won't argue (because you know, that's disruptive ;-) but have to note that as written, that's essentially a dishonest description of the page. sorry. Privatemusings ( talk) 21:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Proposal to transform the Audit Subcommittee in an independent committee and grant new responsibilities
Please see here for details on this proposal, and preliminary discussion. Cenarium ( talk) 22:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I added Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Audit Subcommittee to the page categories, feel free to revert if that was an error. 69.111.194.167 ( talk) 22:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
| Wikipedia talk:Review Board Archives |
At this time, the proposal and the discussions have been archived. I am in the process of rereading the totality of the past discussion to make certain that all the expressed concerns have been addressed adequately, with formal voting by ArbCom to follow on adoption. — Coren (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Woah, coren, woah. "Formal arbcom voting" is not how we make policy here - it is made by consensus. And your analysis of the results seems to ignore one open question: "should there be a board?". It seems to me, that if that question is asked - then the community has certainly not agreed that there should. This proposal should be marked as rejected, although someone is free to try again with another one.--
Scott Mac (Doc) 17:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Both sending to ArbCom and marking as rejected are premature courses of action at this point. Let the authors revise it and then put the revised version out there for discussion.
Skomorokh 18:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Further discussion is fine. It is conceivable that consensus may be reached (even I could be persuaded). But if arbcom are terminating the discussion, then it should be noted that at the end of the community discussion, there was no community consensus for the proposal - which is the current state of affairs.--
Scott Mac (Doc) 18:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- An absence of consensus in favour of a proposal at a given time is not equivalent to rejection. Nor is archiving talk "terminating the discussion" - I think you are looking at this quite uncharitably. Marking as rejected effectively kills a proposal and puts a bad light on all similar proposals. If there is a version of this proposal that is acceptable to the community, how does the project benefit from rendering it stillborn? This proposal, if implemented, would be a significant change to the project, but leaving it marked "proposed" changes nothing. In summary, I don't see any benefit from marking this rejected, and a significant possible benefit from marking it proposed. Skomorokh 18:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Further discussion is fine. It is conceivable that consensus may be reached (even I could be persuaded). But if arbcom are terminating the discussion, then it should be noted that at the end of the community discussion, there was no community consensus for the proposal - which is the current state of affairs.--
Scott Mac (Doc) 18:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Both sending to ArbCom and marking as rejected are premature courses of action at this point. Let the authors revise it and then put the revised version out there for discussion.
Skomorokh 18:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've removed the "should there be..." point below. I dislike trying to push things around but, strictly speaking, the authority for reviewing CU and OS actions is entirely, and exclusively, the committee's; and if we intend to delegate that authority to a group of users picked jointly by the community and ArbCom, that would be strictly ArbCom's decision. Community input into how that is done is welcome, and sought, and even a cursory inspection of the talk page archive will show that a great deal of listening has taken place. — Coren (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Coren, the point of this discussion was to decide whether the authority for reviewing CU should remain entirely and exclusively the committee's. We can't close the discussion by begging the question.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 21:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's a legitimate, but entirely separate question, and one which lies far beyond the scope of this proposal of a method to delegate some of that authority which currently does rest with the committee. The fact of the matter is, ArbCom is currently tasked with overseeing the use of those tools; and this discussion was never meant to change that state of fact (and I would expect it to be very difficult to do in practice, given the obvious difficulty in reaching concensus). In the meantime, and regardless of such discussion, ArbCom wants to delegate that task to a different group to improve transparency and efficiency. — Coren (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Coren, the point of this discussion was to decide whether the authority for reviewing CU should remain entirely and exclusively the committee's. We can't close the discussion by begging the question.
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 21:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- What did you intend this proposal to accomplish, if not the creation of a board to review CU complaints?
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 21:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand your question; of course that is the intent. You're asking the question "should ArbCom be the group with the authority and responsibility to oversee use of checkuser and oversight in the first place?". I'm not attempting to answer that question, simply noticing that it does in fact currently have it. This proposal is simply delegating that authority. — Coren (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- What did you intend this proposal to accomplish, if not the creation of a board to review CU complaints?
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 21:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Coren, as I've said before, arbcom can delegate its authority to anyone it likes. Go do it - pick people you trust and appoint them. However, it cannot create a community election process without the consent of the community; a fact that it implicitly recognised when it asked the community for consent. It is no use saying "we need more accountability" and then dictating how the community shall do it - whether they like it or not. The internal workings of arbcom are your prerogative to amend, but if you want to create a new political bureaucracy which will suck in time and effort, then you really do need to check that the wider community wants it, and doesn't want to resist per WP:CREEP and WP:NOT (a bureaucracy). There is a great irony that an arbcom which is supposedly more sensitive to community concerns is willing to grab policy-making power from the community. There is also an irony that we elected you and gave you the power to police checkusers (or to delegate that power), but now you are here insisting that we elect someone else because we don't trust you to delegate. Well, maybe we don't trust anyone else we might elect more than we trust you. And if you don't think we should be trusting you, then you should resign. I do believe arbcom has too much to do, and should delegate. But because I think you've got too much to do I don't want to give you policy making power on top of that, particularly when you are declaring yourselves unfit to do the job of delegating we entrusted you with. The first question in the misguided poll was "Do you support the creation of a board to review Check User and Oversight use as defined here?" [1]. A proposition which certainly has nothing approaching community consensus. So, please listen.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 22:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- That question was added by Deacon of Pndapetzim, but was never in fact open. I really, really can't figure out where you are trying to head with your opposition here; you acknowledge that we could just pick editors and give them the role, yet balk at allowing the community a voice in the matter? You're actually in favor of ArbCom ruling by fiat rather than consult the community? —
Coren
(talk) 23:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed it was. I added it, as I noticed the other questions were Loaded questions in assuming acceptance of the board existed already. This was not to derail the proposal though, but rather to make it clear whether it was going forward with or without wider community approval. I'm fully aware arbcom can go ahead with this against the opposition of almost anyone except Jimbo Wales. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 23:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Coren, are you just playing dumb here? You are saying you want community input in electing editors, yet you are, in the same breath, denying the community any input in whether to have an election. You don't give a toss about getting community consent for this new energy-sucking process, and you are not giving that toss in the name of "getting community input"? Yes, I utterly object in principle to a bureaucratic process-driven politically charged election, with all the drama it entails simply because you folk can't trust yourselves to pick seven reasonable people and tell them to do a job! If election give legitimacy and community input, then I point out that we just elected you. You are the people the community trust to do the job - so please do it. And if you think we'd better elect a different group of people, then at least have the courtesy to ask us if we want to do that, or if we rather you simply exercised the mandate you have. We have a status-quo here, if you want to change it dramatically - get a consensus. You have a mandate to oversee checkusers (or to delegate) you have no mandate to impose more distracting wikipolitical creep, which is against the spirit of WP:NOT and WP:CREEP, process without our consent.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 23:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
(undent) Allow me to be blunt here: I saw 14 oppositions, 10 of which were opposition to process for the sake of opposition to process, two that were clearly opposition to a misunderstanding of what the board would be, and two that were based on the mistaken presumption that the ombudsman commission already did this. Not only is this hardly opposition from the community at large, but it's not particularly compelling. WP:BURO is about not burdening Wikipedia with unneeded bureaucracy, not about avoiding all processes for the sake of avoiding process. Given that I count at least 40-odd people who explicitly support the move in one form or another (even if there were point of contention on some of the details of implementation), the position against allowing the community to pick who would sit on that board is in a minority. You are, and will remain, strictly allowed to ignore any community selection process— and from your point of view the end result will remain strictly equivalent to ArbCom having simply picked. However, the people who do care about who sit on the board will be able to be heard, and have input in the process. — Coren (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think you are confusing the reasons for the opposition, or else purposely misrepresenting them in order to undermine it. I for my part was fully clear on what the ombudsman's role was (after it was cleared at least), but JzG's point stands still (this job is partially covered) and other reasons were given there and elsewhere on the page. The arbcom can go ahead with it if it chooses, and it can choose to rubbish the opposition if it decides doing so is in its interest, but if later it all looks pointless, pear-shaped or the RB drifts into other roles, or even if it goes very well, those oppose votes will still be there to said "we opposed this" or "we supported" and you overruled us or went with us. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 23:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Coren, I think you saw what you wanted, just as you asked only the questions you wanted. "Loaded" is the right analysis. But now, at least you are bothering to look at what people are saying (despite your contention that their views are irrelevant). I'm going to drop it now, because it is obvious that this was stitched up from the beginning on a secret arbcom wiki. However, I simply wish to record my dismay and dissent not just to your decision, but to the method and high-handedness which have accompanied it. You will do as you please with the powers you have granted yourself.--
Scott Mac (Doc) 23:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that the Committee is going to own and operate this Review Board. If the community wants a CU/Oversight audit/review that is more independent than this one appears to be, then someone else is going to have to propose it and get it passed by community consensus. Cla68 ( talk) 23:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Coren, I think you saw what you wanted, just as you asked only the questions you wanted. "Loaded" is the right analysis. But now, at least you are bothering to look at what people are saying (despite your contention that their views are irrelevant). I'm going to drop it now, because it is obvious that this was stitched up from the beginning on a secret arbcom wiki. However, I simply wish to record my dismay and dissent not just to your decision, but to the method and high-handedness which have accompanied it. You will do as you please with the powers you have granted yourself.--
Scott Mac (Doc) 23:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Points that have been left relatively open
Selection method for members of the pool from which ArbCom will make appointments
- Opinions are split between a RfA-like process and first-past-the-post elections.
Whether, and how long, should former CU/OS be disqualified
- Intervals from none to one year have been put forth.
Other questions raised in the poll
Does the community support a Review Board?
- I see no consensus on this question. However, Coren disagrees (see his remarks above). I'd be interested in hearing other dispassionate analysis. Arbcom may decide not to care about consensus here (see Coren's remarks) but I'm rather dismayed that my attempt to have this analysed have simply been removed. I simply ask others, Do you view this result as constituting a clear community consensus for this to proceed?-- Scott Mac (Doc) 12:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes and no. Yes, there is consensus for ArbCom to get something done - and no, that snapshot doesn't demonstrate it. This has been a poorly advertised page plagued with various problems, but the extent to which the community believe some sort of independent body should be overseeing oversight can be drawn from the response to Thatcher's essay, the election results themselves, various complaints throughout the previous year, and comments in the archives. We've seen that these surveys tend to be flawed snapshots: compare the initial RFC on Checkuser appointments to the current hooplah now that the election is poised to start. It is my honest belief that on balance, the community is in favor of ArbCom dealing with the CU/OS oversight situation in a new way.
- The consensus is found in the discussion - not by counting votes. People have made suggestions on how the board should run while having voted "no" - some people have showed up to ask without voting at all. Most of the voted objections are based on a misunderstanding of the abilities of the ombudsman's commission or some complaint about bureaucracy - the solution is not to trash the process, but to address the concerns, to find the consensus opinion in between.
- There is an additional problem: say we chalk this up as "ArbCom doesn't have community consensus way of fixing the problem." Are we ever going to find a process that has full throated community support at every step of the way? Maybe, but probably not - instead we could go through months of hand wringing while we try to find the best process (or something that works similar but doesn't look like a bureaucracy) - while the genuine consensus of Wikipedians is that something should be done, or at least it is in my analysis.
- At the end of the day, ArbCom was elected by the community - and its up to them what they want to do. If this exists as a delegation of their power, we have to always remember that the community elected their arbitrators - and it is the new arbitrators that are providing the thrust of the changes. The community has spoken in pretty much the only kind of vote on Wikipedia that genuinely gets wide attention.--
Tznkai (
talk) 14:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I completely agree that arbcom have the power and mandate both to oversee checkuser and/or to delegate. I also agree that there is a consensus that a new group should be given the task. However, I think that if you want to create an election process with attendant bureaucracy, which will involve a great deal of community attention and effort, then you need more than surmises from a badly advertised discussion. I've yet to see any argument against arbcom simply appointing a group of delegates (which they can do tomorrow) and then, if necessary, reviewing the mechanism for selection at a later date once we know what it is we have, and how significant (or otherwise) it turns out to be.--
Scott Mac (Doc) 14:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- It might damage the effectiveness of the panel. Any auditing group needs the confidence of the community (although a vote isn't the only way to do it) - and asking for community voice and suddenly saying "You know what? Nevermind." doesn't engender that community confidence usually. I do agree that this was poorly advertised before it was moved into a snap poll - still not sure why or how that happened. At the end of the day though, I assure you, no matter how much disagreement with the bureaucracy or the voting method, people will still vote. Not sure what that says exactly, but it definitely says something about the way the polity operates.-- Tznkai ( talk) 14:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I completely agree that arbcom have the power and mandate both to oversee checkuser and/or to delegate. I also agree that there is a consensus that a new group should be given the task. However, I think that if you want to create an election process with attendant bureaucracy, which will involve a great deal of community attention and effort, then you need more than surmises from a badly advertised discussion. I've yet to see any argument against arbcom simply appointing a group of delegates (which they can do tomorrow) and then, if necessary, reviewing the mechanism for selection at a later date once we know what it is we have, and how significant (or otherwise) it turns out to be.--
Scott Mac (Doc) 14:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Points that have been resolved
- Members should be allowed to rerun any checkuser to examine the results
- Members should have access to all relevant mailing lists
- What powers if any does the panel have?
- Who is the panel responsible to?
- If there are complaints about the board, who controls them?
- What are their established standards?
- How public does the audit process need to be?
Anything else?-- Tznkai ( talk) 23:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, those questions should be answered in the policy itself; if they are not it's a bug that needs fixing. :-) The intent, at this time, being (in order):
- Investigate allegations of abuse, and keep an eye out for problematic use of the tools;
- Ultimately, ArbCom, as they exist as a delegation of their authority
- ArbCom again, although there is provision for self-policing
- The current, existing policy on use of checkuser and oversight, as well as the Foundation privacy policy
- "As much as possible without breaching privacy"; this is hard to write down in advance, and I expect the board itself will be able to create a working procedure to settle this quickly enough.
— Coren (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood slightly. As the proposal stands, the audit panel has no procedural powers besides formal reprimands and recommendations. If thats ok, thats ok, but thats not the only option. I've proposed giving the panel the power to remove permissions themselves on a unanimous vote, as well as the ability to issue temporary suspension orders while they investigated and there was a little vague support for the idea that the panel should have such powers, and no opposition - but mostly no discussion. This is something that I think should be cleared up ASAP for the public before the proposal goes to committee vote.
- In addition, the standards I meant are internal to the audit panel. Frankly, I think the panel should be held to higher standards of conduct than any body or person is currently held to. This is not a position where we can accept people being dicks, whatever their excuses.
- Finally, and I accept this will be touch and go, where are panel votes going to be? Are they going to get their own wiki? Vote on a new e-mail list? Vote on functionaries-en-l (will they be posting or only reading members on that list?) Some of these things will have to be hammered out by the panel in its early days, but some of it should be hammered out now.--
Tznkai (
talk) 23:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed; note that at this point, and for this purpose, I'm specifically giving my personal opinion on the matter.
- I don't know if it would be wise, this early, to directly grant the power to remove bits to the board. The concept is new, and its implementation will remain in flux for some time. What I can tell you is that the committee will take the recommendations of the board seriously and is very unlikely to not follow up a request to remove the bits.
- I'm not opposed, in principle, to granting this directly to the board; I'm just uncertain that "bundling" that with the initial creation of the board is a good idea (but I remain open to be convinced, and the other arbs may well favor doing this direct delegation immediately).
- As for the internal standards, I agree they should be the highest possible— but I'm uncertain how we could codify this beyond the immense care I expect both the community and ArbCom will display during the selection process. Are you suggesting a specific behavioral code we should expand on?
- As for where the panel votes will take place, that's a question I was specifically leaving to the board itself. The members will have been selected for their judgment, after all, and I expect that some workable compromise between openness and privacy can be crafted out of both community expectations and "best practice". Personally, I would tend to expect most initial votes to be private with results posted publicly; the very fact that an investigation has taken place could well disclose information that should have been kept private. But that's hard enough a question that I don't think we can reasonably answer if we're not sitting on the front lines ourselves.
- —
Coren
(talk) 00:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I expect that all the panel members selected will be deeply ethical people - and if they're not we've got a problem - but as a matter of best practice I think that we should establish upfront what standards members will be held up against (say, by arbcom in the event of a case). Unlike permissions, panel members need to have a good work output, significant diplomatic skills and full public confidence, and I think that should be set in stone.--
Tznkai (
talk) 02:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm certainly all ears; do you have specific points you'd like covered, or do you think that simply stating those expectations in the policy grounds them sufficiently? Right now, the policy states "Board members are expected to be diligent, respectful, and proper at all times.", which I admit is more of a guideline than specific rules to follow... but I'm not entirely certain how that could be cemented without delving into a long code of behavior. —
Coren
(talk) 04:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have some ideas, but before I forget I want to get back to empowering the panel for a moment. We've got two basic issues here: one, Audit Panel will have jurisdiction over arbiters which is one reason for increased independence of bit removal. Two, and more pressingly, if the auditors discover that a CU is under reasonable suspicion of causing harm, the audit panel needs the power to compel the user to suspend their privileges instead of reporting out to ArbCom, and waiting for arbcom to vote, before then proceeding to a full audit, which reports back out to arbcom again. While that procedural mess can be fixed slightly, having to go to ArbCom for suspension will always add more potential problems - its best that such temporary measures be done by the investigating body immediately.-- Tznkai ( talk) 04:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm certainly all ears; do you have specific points you'd like covered, or do you think that simply stating those expectations in the policy grounds them sufficiently? Right now, the policy states "Board members are expected to be diligent, respectful, and proper at all times.", which I admit is more of a guideline than specific rules to follow... but I'm not entirely certain how that could be cemented without delving into a long code of behavior. —
Coren
(talk) 04:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- I expect that all the panel members selected will be deeply ethical people - and if they're not we've got a problem - but as a matter of best practice I think that we should establish upfront what standards members will be held up against (say, by arbcom in the event of a case). Unlike permissions, panel members need to have a good work output, significant diplomatic skills and full public confidence, and I think that should be set in stone.--
Tznkai (
talk) 02:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed; note that at this point, and for this purpose, I'm specifically giving my personal opinion on the matter.
(undent) To be honest, I'd be wary of giving the board the power to immediately suspend or revoke privileges before their operating procedures, internal functionning, and some period of "burn-in" has been completed; not to say that the independence and teeth this would give it wouldn't be desirable in the long run. I agree that this means that, until then, it adds a bit of delay— but I would also expect that cases so egregious as to need emergency action should be thankfully very rare and ArbCom could deal with them swiftly. Cases which involve an Arb could be taken to Jimbo for swift action if needed.
I'm quite certain it'll take some months at least before community expectations, the genuine workload, and the complexity of their task is fully understood; that alone should speak against opening up the killswitch too early.
It's an issue that I'd be more than willing to revisit, say, six months hence— and it's likely that, at that time, I'd be comfortable with handing the big red button to the board. — Coren (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I've removed this bit as unnecessary - the principle may have merit, but it doesn't really work for me in context - I'm still chewing over much of the above, fwiw..... Privatemusings ( talk) 04:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- All policies and major guidelines should be edited with caution. In the case of this one, it relates to Foundation principles and fiduciary responsibilities that individual editors and the English Wikipedia community cannot alter; hence the caution.
Risker (
talk) 04:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- heh... I reckon biographies should probably be edited with caution too.... and probably articles in general actually :-) - wiki editors not being able to change the laws of the universe rarely seems much of an impediment, I've noticed - but I totally get where you're coming from, Risk... it's just 'not very wiki' in my view... (obviously) I won't repeat the edit or anything... dunno what's happening with this really.. but arbcom creating policy-by-fiat is an interesting direction... p'raps I could persuade you to ask the dev.s to implement flagged revisions too? cheers,
Privatemusings (
talk) 07:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think you'll find that most (all?) of the arbs that have spoken up in that particular discussion have done so in favor of the feature; the difference lies in the fact that flagged revision is hardly a simple delegation from current ArbCom responsibilities. —
Coren
(talk) 13:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Creating a politically-charged second round of elections is hardly "simple delegation from current ArbCom responsibilities". A "simple delegation" is where you simply delegate.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 13:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think you'll find that most (all?) of the arbs that have spoken up in that particular discussion have done so in favor of the feature; the difference lies in the fact that flagged revision is hardly a simple delegation from current ArbCom responsibilities. —
Coren
(talk) 13:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- heh... I reckon biographies should probably be edited with caution too.... and probably articles in general actually :-) - wiki editors not being able to change the laws of the universe rarely seems much of an impediment, I've noticed - but I totally get where you're coming from, Risk... it's just 'not very wiki' in my view... (obviously) I won't repeat the edit or anything... dunno what's happening with this really.. but arbcom creating policy-by-fiat is an interesting direction... p'raps I could persuade you to ask the dev.s to implement flagged revisions too? cheers,
Privatemusings (
talk) 07:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
This page and the archive illustrate that this proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline,, the very creation of the board, will not achieve consensus and will not be created by community impetus. Arbcom are free to come up with it on the basis of their own authority, but should now do so explicitly or else drop the matter. I think after this time, as the discussion has effectively died down with more opposition than favour, Scott's insertion of the failure tag is justified. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 23:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The following was posted on User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim
- Please do not place a rejected tag on this again; at this time, the policy is being examined by the committee. — Coren (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
In response, Coren, this is tagged as a community proposal. It has failed to get consensus by this means. If Arbcom wish to create this body by means of their own power, that's fine, but then it's not a community proposal and shouldn't be tagged as such. It would seem in the context that a new template needs created for this and other future internal Arbcom proceedings, or if Arbcom wish to advance a later proposal, then {{Draft proposal}} might be better. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 23:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, you are probably right that a better, more descriptive template might be better suited. Imma going to make one just now. — Coren (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've just placed a reasonable first draft of a more accurate template,
{{ Arbcom proposed}}. Chances are the wording there could use some tweaking, though. — Coren (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)- Yup, to indicate that policy requires consensus. So tweeked.--
Scott Mac (Doc) 13:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, it does not; the point of that template is to distinguish from the normal case where it does, not to make it a copy of {{ proposed}}. — Coren (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Since you are insisting on a template which implies an unfettered power for arbcom to create policy, I've sent it to [
TfD]--
Scott Mac (Doc) 17:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- after some discussion, the wording of the template has been altered - I think it now fits better the intended use as described at the deletion discussion - however it no longer fits here with the current wording. This proposal quite clearly isn't part of the arbitration policy in my view.
Privatemusings (
talk) 02:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think that is a problem of language - not of anything else.--
Tznkai (
talk) 13:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm frankly not clear what the antecedent of the word "that" is in Tznkai's comment.
- That said, I think the function of "Investigating allegations related to misuse of checkuser or oversight" is within the remit of Arbcomm policy, specifically "The arbitrators reserve the right to hear or not hear any dispute, at their discretion." On the other hand "Monitoring checkuser and oversight compliance with the WMF's checkuser and oversight policies," does not seem to find any support in the ratified Arbcomm policy
[2], unless we say that there is a longstanding dispute about routine use of the tools. I find it a stretch, but one I would not choose to oppose.
GRBerry 21:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- What I was trying to say is that the thrust of the proposal - a body that oversees CheckUsers and Oversighters is within the remit of the committee, and how well it fits the template which refers to a modification to arbitration policy is a problem of semantics, not of conception. You bring up a good point though - ArbCom's relationship to the WMF is, from where I sit anyway, poorly defined.-- Tznkai ( talk) 22:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think that is a problem of language - not of anything else.--
Tznkai (
talk) 13:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- after some discussion, the wording of the template has been altered - I think it now fits better the intended use as described at the deletion discussion - however it no longer fits here with the current wording. This proposal quite clearly isn't part of the arbitration policy in my view.
Privatemusings (
talk) 02:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yup, to indicate that policy requires consensus. So tweeked.--
Scott Mac (Doc) 13:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I see Coren put the tag back, citing the opinion of the committee that this really is a 'tentative modification to the arbitration policy'. Heh... I won't argue (because you know, that's disruptive ;-) but have to note that as written, that's essentially a dishonest description of the page. sorry. Privatemusings ( talk) 21:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Proposal to transform the Audit Subcommittee in an independent committee and grant new responsibilities
Please see here for details on this proposal, and preliminary discussion. Cenarium ( talk) 22:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I added Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Audit Subcommittee to the page categories, feel free to revert if that was an error. 69.111.194.167 ( talk) 22:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)