Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Regarding the Summary

You guys can change it too if you want to add some things. If anyone disagrees with the change, they or potentially I will revert it and we can discuss the change here. SilverserenC 23:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we add this?

I'm not sure what the usual process is for listing RfCs, especially considering the high level subject this one is discussing. Anyone else know what the process is for this? SilverserenC 23:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we add it by putting this banner

Comments are invited regarding the Arbitration Committee and its procedures for investigating suspected sockpuppets. Bwrs (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbs, please give us some ideas

Working from the assumption that is it possible for a wholly innocent person to be "convicted" (and therefore working from the assumption that it is no possible for CU's, arbs, etc. to be wholly infallible in perpetuity) ...

How can an innocent person come back after a wrongful ban for sockpuppetry?

P.S. Please note that we're talking about an innocent person here, so any responses along the line of "guilty people always say they're innocent" have wholly missed the point. [Don't do that.] Pesky (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: my proposal on the project page is intended to encourage / produce some principle-centred and solution-focussed thinking. Pesky (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removed comment

I removed this content, initiated by a confirmed sockpuppet of indef'd editor, from the main page, per some vague synthesis of wp:ban and wp:iar. Standard disclaimer: BRD applies, revert if desired. see also Nobody Ent 15:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal by PaoloNapolitano

Proposal (1)

Sockpuppets should only be blocked from editing if they have been found to be abusing editing privileges. Wikipedia will always need productive contributors, and "rehabilitated" sockpuppets should NOT be excluded from editing. PaoloNapolitano 10:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not support. Editors are blocked and banned for a reason. When someone is banned, we are telling the person that their edits are not wanted. This makes a mockery of several policies. SirFozzie (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given the recent findings on ANI about PaoloNapolitano, I suspect he has a COI on the proposal he made above. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paolo, if you've got something to tell us, or the committee, then earlier is probably better than later, and doing it yourself is probably better than having someone else figure it out and let it be known.VolunteerMarek 18:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal effectively means "don't enforce blocks or bans". Kaldari (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It's like the intellectual version of WOW." ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but why is this proposal even here? The proposer is an unrepentant sockmaster with a vested interest in seeing these same sorts of unrepentant sockmasters get off scot-free. This is not what this talk has been about - or should be about. It's like we're trying to make soup here, and different folk show up trying to turn the soup into a four-course meal. Stay on target, friends. I suggest that we limit this discussion to people who aren't actually indef blocked for socking. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And there's me thinking you were going to say that this was obviously the result of a "secret trial by emotion by Arbs, who make a point of crying out how they are not perfect at every given fuck-up they are caught at." Seriously, this ought to be struck, hatted or otherwise edited out of the equation. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rambling from S Marshall

I take this as evidence that we need to give more thought to Wikipedia's governance. It seems to me that some of the perceived issues with Arbcom occur because Arbcom is generally fraught and its participants overworked; and I think this arises because there are so many complex issues that only Arbcom is perceived as being capable of dealing with.

I actually think we need several different overseeing bodies, one of which should be a transparency body (consisting of former Arbs who are still in good standing and participating in the project) whose only role is to see that only deliberations that need to be secret take place in secret. Other specialist bodies should include a group tasked with overseeing administrators—coaching and empowering them, providing ongoing support and development, and ensuring that their actions are in accordance with community expectations—and a further specialist body of senior checkusers tasked with coming up with socking-related policies and countermeasures. Arbcom should be able to hand down some of the issues they currently investigate to these bodies. I think all these bodies should be elected.—S Marshall T/C 12:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That pretty much overlaps with my thoughts - amongst others. (Sorry for the belated answer, did not follow the talkpage). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dirk, I wrote an essay a while ago called WP:ArbCom reform, which could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rem dups

Dirk added a complete duplicate of the page with this edit. Strangely, when I tried to remove it the system kept timing out, so instead I did it as a series of edits, section by section. Is anyone else getting problems with time-outs on large edits?  Roger Davies talk 04:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Curious. Did I copy paste the whole page after the edit conflict? If so, my mistake, my apologies. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refocussing this RfC

This RfC has been open nearly 2 months, and I suggest one of two things should happen in the near future:

1) refocus the discussion onto how ArbCom could be restructured,
2) close this RfC with some sort of summary of the discussion.

PhilKnight (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this RfC is anywhere near closing - a refocus may be in order, though there are 12 'Refocussing' proposals which are largely undiscussed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dirk, from my perspective, none of the 12 proposals address the underlying problem of how ArbCom is structured. Saying that ArbCom should be more accountable and transparent is all very well, but I think we should refocus the discussion on how to achieve this. PhilKnight (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True. But closing this RfC is not going to help that. A refocus may be in order (though the underlying problem that is being addressed is not moving on in any form). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How to achieve this, PhilKnight? Maybe the editors to whom it concerns should answer questions when they are asked. It is fine to say "I can't answer that question without giving out personal information", it is fine to answer a question with "Without giving out personal information: they used the same IP in [this] and [this] edit" - it is not fine to not answer a question even when the information is all not personal, not secret, etc. (as is, e.g., apparently the case with by far most, if not practically all of, the evidence regarding ScottyBerg being a Mantanmoreland sock), and it is actually uncivil when no answer at all is given. But it is good to see that at least you agree that these situations are not transparent. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed this RFC as it has had time to refocus. It hasnt happened, and I doubt it will happen. I suspect that people arnt interested in this RFC because the bulk of the RFC is about ScottyBerg, in excruciating detail which most people won't be interested in. For the record I had no involvement in the ScottyBerg block or review by ArbCom. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

Hmm, for the record: I am not sure if I agree with an Arbitrator closing this RfC which was aimed at ArbCom/CU actions and renaming it. I would have preferred an uninvolved administrator (or actually, 2-3) to close this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current or Ex? But the point is still a good one William M. Connolley (talk) 07:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, ex-arbitrator (did not notice that that changed, John has just updated his userpage - diff). But I still think that that this should be closed by uninvolved administrators who are and have not been an arbitrator and are not and have not been a checkuser. I am sorry, but this gives me yet again an impression of ArbCom trying to hide the situation they have created, without an independent resolution, one of the very problems that were stated in this RfC. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Beetstra. I am indeed an ex-arbitrator and I've had zero involvement in this Scottyberg thing. This RFC about ScottyBerg is a dead horse; it doesnt need three uninvolved administrators to come to that conclusion. In more than two months, only ~40 non-arbs have edited, and you alone make up over 20% of the edits to this RFC, and arbitrators responses is about 15% of the edits to this RFC. This RFC is a far cry from prior RFCs about ArbCom. There have been some useful discussions here, which may bear some further discussion, but they isnt any clear outcomes as the focus has been on ScottyBerg. If you want to continue to persue this ScottyBerg thing, I suggest you raise your concerns to WP:AUSC. If you want to continue to discuss meta issues, start a new RFC or take it to the VP as several RFC opinions suggested. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John, the RfC starts with the statement "This RfC is to discuss current and, potentially, past incidents involving the Arbitration Committee, where actions were taken against users, usually blocks, that involved a lack of information and transparency and often oblique, extremely generalized statements to both the accused and to other community members." (my bolding) - I therefore feel that a former Arbitrator should not be closing this, but rather an uninvolved administrator who has not been, and is not, an arbitrator. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"potentially", my emphasis. ;-) I'm sorry the RFC didnt have that scope. There are some really good essays for ArbCom reform out there, and some good ideas in the last ArbCom RFC that have yet to be realised, but this RFC is a dead horse. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that it is a dead horse, and closure followed by a next refocussed RfC may be a good solution, but I am sure that there are admins available who do not have a perception of being involved, John. But it is in the end your call. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And just as a note, I do see that you were still active as an Arbitrator in some cases (that were still open from last year) while this RfC was already open. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ecx500)I concur that it would have been far better if this hadn't been closed by an ex arb, to prevent the impression of ArbCom being biased to protect their own, or protect the status quo. Renaming the case not to be directly to be about current and former ArbCom functioning by an ex ArbCom member is not ideal either, for the same reasons. That said, we don't have that many admins able and willing to close difficult RfC's. I can wish a set of 3 uninvolved admins willing to close this RfC out of thin air, but unfortunately, it doesn't work like that, so although I find it unfortunate that an ex arbitrator closed a case also about him. So the question becomes, do we have an alternative. It would be my preference even if it leads to moar dramaz, to undo the close, and see if we can get three uninvolved admins who are willing to take this up. If that fails, we can see what we can do about it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I do not have a specific problem if the RfC is closed by 1 (truly independent) administrator, though I'd prefer 2-3. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Vandenberg would have it, the editors who contributed to this RFC were engaged in a pointless exercise: discussing the block of an editor who promised to leave Wikipedia even if the sanction were reversed. Issues presented here transcend the narrow scope of this block as they encompass the cloak and dagger procedures and secret evidence often used by arbcom. The block of ScottyBerg was treated as an example of the offending phenomenon. The renaming of the RFC is POV in another sense. To characterize the matter as a "sock review" instead of a "block review" is conclusory on the merits of arbcom's secret evidence. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_3"