View text source at Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

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.

Call for applications: clerks, COI queue, checkuser, and oversight

[edit]
Original announcement
I might be interested in the COI queue if I knew more exactly what it was and what the job entails. Is there a page about it? Bishonen | tålk 12:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
WP:COIVRT is the link :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 12:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was interested, but grappling with all that legalese, especially this one, has put me off, I'm afraid. Life's too short. I don't suppose there's an executive summary? Bishonen | tålk 12:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen In a nutshell, people send reports of suspected UPE etc based on information that can't be posted on the wiki. You need to sign a couple of things to be allowed access but they're fairly standard NDAs that basically amount to a promise not to publicly disclose information you gleaned because of that access. Hope tyat helps but happy to clarify further if needed. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Harry, sorry to be so unfamiliar with these apparently standard things (not standard in my world). The most worrying part is that I can't figure whether I'm required to provide my real name, as the central concept of "signing" isn't any too clear to me. Bishonen | tålk 13:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
You can sign with your screen name (I did). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Barkeep. Yes, the WMF does not require you to submit personal information these days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, Barkeep49, that part's OK then. But, Harry, I don't understand how it works once the evidence is in. Suppose the information received is convincing, does a COI VRT member - as it might be, me - then block the UPE? But I can't tell the UPE what the evidence against them is, can I, as that would be outing. So how can the UPE appeal the block, or even know what they're supposed to have done? Or would I tell them off-wiki (=per e-mail)? (I worry about outing all the time.) Bishonen | tålk 17:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
When you block the user based on private evidence submitted to any queue, you provide the ticket number in the block rationale. Otherwise, the actual block issued is for promotion usually, which is the actual issue. Izno (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a big advocate of just blocking for spam/advertising or something else that's obvious where possible. If the edits are too subtle for that, there's the option to block for UPE and cite a ticket number, which can then be reviewed by anyone with access to the queue. To be honest, I don't know offhand how often that happens HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty often. We've been cracking down on UPEs for about a decade now, so the ones that persevere know how to avoid writing blatantly promotional articles. So they are blocked first and foremost for violating the ToU. As for appeals @Bishonen: they can make an unblock unrequest on-wiki as usual, where a CU can look at it and review the nonpublic evidence (if necessary), or to ArbCom. Unless something has gone very wrong, they don't need to be told what they did, because they did it. – Joe (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe the brighter ones maybe! There's still no shortage of blatant spammers. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested in becoming a clerk, please email clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org instead of arbcom-en-c. As an aside, given that I wrote much of the COIVRT page, this may be an indicator that my writing is too dull/inaccessible 😬. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do—thanks, Sdrqaz. SerialNumber54129 02:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to note something else for the record. These are roles we're always recruiting for! Last year we tried to make that clear in this announcement, but I suspect that paradoxically, removing the annual call for applications might have reduced applications (whereas the intended effect was to increase them). So, I wanted to mention that anyone who is even considering whether they might be a good fit for CU/OS, presently or in the future (reasonably soon), is very welcome to reach out to ArbCom and ask. You're also welcome to ask me, of course, even after I'm off the committee in two months. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@L235 It probably wouldn't be the world's worst idea to put something similar to this in WP:ADMINNEWS, not everybody who might be interested will necessarily be watching this page. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing this out there as a suggestion: Has anyone on ArbCom gone around and issued personal invites to qualified candidates? You might already be doing this (and I wouldn't know because I do not qualify for any besides clerk :D). But doesn't hurt to raise the idea. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Primefac (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster I know several arbs have reached out to individuals. If you can think of anyone who might be good for these roles, feel free to mention it to them or drop their name to ArbCom or an individual arb. I also agree with @Thryduulf's suggestion of putting it in the admin newsletter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I've flagged this for ADMINNEWS at Special:Diff/1250669925. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the change to rolling was good, though I understand why it was done. Deadlines spur action for a lot of people, and so people get stuck in holding patterns because they never feel that they reach the required level of readiness. From an organisational/administrative perspective, when we receive an application are we supposed to send out a message asking for more? Is the whole process of various consultations worth doing for a single application? Should we set a deadline for applications? The change to rolling has inserted a lot of uncertainty into the process. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far, every time someone asks about joining up, we then make the announcement and more people volunteer; in other words, we have yet to see a single applicant, but I suspect even if we did have a single person it would be easy enough for a shortened timeframe if ArbCom receives good feedback in a shorter amount of time (and yes, I think a full consult for a single editor is still valuable). Primefac (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac I'm having trouble parsing this. I'm assuming "we have yet to see a single applicant" means "we have never had to process one applicant in isolation", not "we've never seen any applicants at all"? RoySmith (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct; a single applicant triggers a call to action which triggers more applicants applying. Primefac (talk) 10:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to request the OS bit back if you need more OSers. But I'm confident I'm not going to be active enough to meet the minimum activity requirements of 5 suppressions every 3 months. If someone kind of disappeared from WP for a while, I certainly understand why you wouldn't want them to keep the tool, but TBH I'm not sure I understand why someone using it ongoingly (probably not a word), but not frequently, is some kind of security risk. And it's not like there are a limited number of bits to ration out to only the most active. I'd have thought that every little bit helps. But you folks make the rules, not me. Let me know if that ever changes. On the other hand, maybe you don't really need more OSers, you just want to keep a standard process going. That seems quite possible, I've only once had a request for OS take longer than an hour. So if you don't really need more, that's cool, nevermind. p.s. On reading this in preview, it sounds kind of bitter. Rather than try to rephrase the whole thing, I'll instead just say here: I promise I'm not bitter. Really. I just find it slightly odd, is all, and I'd be happy to help out like - I don't know? Once a month? More? Less? Who can see the future? - or something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get the concern. At some level, there's an abstract sense among a bunch of arbs that in some sense the number of bits is limited, in the sense that we don't want like 200 oversighters, even highly trusted admins, because the risk of some kind of breach scales linearly up. On the other hand, it's been a while since we've had a serious breach. Anyway, my sense is that there's not any kind of consensus to relax the activity requirement, but it's been on my mind. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously not an arb. But there have been a couple of arbs who I really respect who had a large impact on me in this area. They would discuss how OS shouldn't be a "good admin badge". OS is information that is sensitive enough that we don't even want to trust normal admins with it. Now I acknowledge that this is accompanied by the fact that most OS information is incredibly boring. It's someone's IP. Or some random phone number. Or the birthdate of some 13-year-old. But if we do believe that this information is sensitive - and I do - then I think we should act accordingly and not have "excess capacity" that doesn't add value to the endeavor. An activity requirement is as fair of a way as I can think of to not bloat our OS corp - especially one that considers not just suppressions but other OS related activities. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that OS and CU are generally re-granted almost without question to anybody who has resigned those bits in good standing, I don't see any reason to keep people who aren't actively using their bits on the roles. If things change in the future and they want to get back into it, all they need do is ask. For example, Izno recently asked for CU back and I see they've made huge progress beating down the SPI backlog. RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the oversight team is probably slightly over-staffed at the minute. Which is not a bad thing; it means that most requests are handled very quickly and we have a good bus factor. We're not desperate for more oversighters, but equally we don't want to close off applications and risk the team becoming stale and detached from the community as a whole. All of which is, I suppose, a convoluted way of saying all applications wiol be considered on their merit. If anyone reading this has thought they might make a good oversighter (or be a good fit for any of the other roles), your application would be welcome or you can reach out for an informal chat. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you became an OS again, who would be able to quip so eloquently at the machine? Izno (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are differing opinions on this: the 2022 and 2023 committees implicitly discouraged Oversight applications (compare the wording of the first sentences to 2021's). My perspective is that there are still times where Oversight requests take hours to be addressed; that, coupled with the fact that Oversight requests are sometimes urgent in ways that CheckUser requests are not (someone being outed would naturally feel that an hour is an absolute eternity), makes me think that as long as that exists, we still have space for more Oversighters. (I would, however, prefer that people keep within the activity requirements.)
If we reach a point (we may have already gotten there) where people can only join the Oversight team through election to the Committee, I don't think that that is healthy for the team or the wider Community in terms of diversity of perspectives. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My take on ex-officio CU/OS (i.e. by virtue of being on arbcom) is that it's mostly because it's part of arbcom's job to monitor/audit CU/OS activity, so the arbs need to be able to see the private logs and review the private data. I would expect most arbs spend most of their time arbing and very little time OS/CU-ing, and the numbers bear this out. There's only one arb in the top-15 CUs, although arbs are much better represented in the top OS slots. RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arbs getting elected and taking up OS is something that regularly happens, so pairing it with CU as something not to think about doesn't seem the best for me. I think we can predict Arbs getting active with OS after being elected will continue to happen given that I expect we will again have a large crop of first time Arbs this coming year. So it's not really true we haven't been getting new OS it's just true we haven't been appointing them, and instead we get new OS through the community route. After my comment above someone shared with me that they actually think we should have a good admin award. If we want to make COIVRT access a good admin award I'd have no problem with that in a way I obviously don't care for with OS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Good admin awards" are barnstars. I'm not trying to be funny here, but given the private data and need for focused policy understanding and discretion, we shouldn't reduce it to just an award. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for good admin awards. By the nature of its work, ArbCom often criticises individual admins but there's not a lot of positive feedback in the role. But I agree with Sdrqaz that access to confidential information should only be given to those who will make judicious, policy-compliant use of it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I just started looking into what admin awards exist. Apparently I'm a Master Custodian of the Cabal, although I meet the time-in-office requirement to be a Quantum Custodian :-) RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aw man I'm a couple thousand admin actions short of "Great Grand Custodian of the Cabal". On the other hand I apparently just cracked the top 100 in total number of blocks issued, so I got that going for me. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rookie numbers! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at around a quarter of your blocks, but I'm beating you in thanks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear about one or two things: I wasn't asking about it as a good admin badge, though I understand you're all probably not talking about me. I'm relieved Harry says we're overstaffed, and not relieved that Sdrqaz says we're not. I believe I could simply re-ask for it again, without going thru this process, but I'm not going to waste everyone's time if I doubt, even at the beginning, that I could meet the activity level, which arbs seem to still be happy with. I hope someone who does meet the activity level will apply and be accepted. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue with the oversight team is that we are geographically imbalanced - requests that come in during waking hours for European and North American oversighters are typically dealt with much quicker than requests that arrive when these two groups are asleep. Harry is based in the UK, while I don't think Sdrqaz makes their location public, if they are based in one of the Asia-Pacific timezones they would (I presume) be more familiar with tickets being answered in hours rather than minutes. I think I've only been the first to see about three tickets this month (and two of them related to other wikis) - on multiple occasions tickets have been less than 5 minutes old and already actioned. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The calls for participation over the past couple of years have hinted at this (We will consider oversight applicants who can strengthen our 24-hour support, notably editors active 0100 to 0600 UTC, likely those resident in Asia and Oceania) but that just gets lost in the noise. We need to be doing more targeted marketing. Post country-specific announcements on the appropriate wikiprojects (WP:INDIA, WP:PAK, WP:AU, WP:CHINA, etc). Or filter through the timecards for the 100 most active admins, see who's normally on-line at those times, and ping them directly. RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A whole bunch of countries from which we are having trouble getting new admins: 2 of those because of paid editing and a third because of a country-wide firewall, even ignoring the issue of English literacy... Izno (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sure, that's a problem. But if we're looking for people who live in certain time zones, it makes sense to publicize this in the forums whose readers are most likely to live in those timezones. RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of Maxim

[edit]
Original announcement