Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Several talk pages get redirected here.

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Motion: AUSC term extensions[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

An extension to the terms of the current members of the Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) is authorised until 00:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC), to allow a functioning subcommittee until appointments are finalised. AUSC members may choose whether they wish to stay on until that period or retire with an effective date of their original term's terminus. As always, the Arbitration Committee thanks the community Audit Subcommittee members for their service.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

  1. As proposer. LFaraone 23:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. T. Canens (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Of necessity, as the timetable has gotten away from us. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 07:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Salvio Let's talk about it! 07:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

Community Comments

  • Has anyone asked the current AUSC members if they want to stay? Guerillero's comments on WT:AC/N don't seem to indicate that. Legoktm (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked (on 28 June), and I said I was willing to stay. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am willing to stay on iff motion 1 passes as well. It clears up my long-term frustrations about sitting on the AUSC and the reason I wanted to get off as soon as my term ended. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was also asked and also said I was willing to stay. MBisanz talk 15:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enacted - S Philbrick(Talk) 18:21, 4 July 2014 (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.

AudCom Reports[edit]

I've noticed that the AudCom reports only date back to April 2013. With the transition to the new team occurring in the next week, I would appreciate if the sitting members could provide a status update or a possible timetable for the next installment. Thanks, Mike V • Talk 18:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc, Joe Decker, and MBisanz: Would you happen to have an update on the reports? Thanks, Mike V • Talk 03:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike V: I have posted a report for the period between the last report and now. Thanks, AGK [•] 23:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: AUSC Extension[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is currently examining several reforms of the Audit Subcommittee and asks for community input on how they would like to see the Subcommittee function in the future. Because of this, the current Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) members' terms are hereby extended to 23:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC).

Supporting: AGK, Doug Weller, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, LFaraone, NativeForeigner, Salvio giuliano, Thryduulf, Yunshui
Opposing: Courcelles

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this and the future of the AUSC at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: AUSC Extension


checkuser requests handling should be in accord with the on-wiki guidance on when they should be performed.[edit]

Hopefully we all agree: SPI & checkuser requests handling should be in accord with the on-wiki guidance on when they should be requested and performed. Yes?

I'm concerned that such requests are being handled contrary to the guidance on when they should be performed. (And sorry - I'm aware that I use 'SPI' and 'checkuser' sort of interchangeably even though I appreciate they're quite different, and guidance on when each is appropriate differs.) It seems like the guidance given about when to request a CU doesn't square at all with this decline by Bbb23. I have no dog in this fight. However, I submitted an unrelated CU request because I happened to see, in passing, while participating in an unrelated deletion discussion on the same page, a blatant abusive personal attack which I removed, and then noticed that the attacker was quite obviously socking. (I have no dog in this fight either - in both, IIRC (haven't double-checked) I don't know the disputants or care about the underlying topics.) Bbb23 declined that as well, also with reasoning contrary to the guidance on when they should be performed. If it's the case that, as BBB says, "We rarely fish for other accounts based on a check of one account." then 1) reason for when such fishing is done should be documented - the documentation says fishing is not done. And when a CU requests a search for other accounts based on a CU request of one account based on evidence, it should not be termed fishing.

The term fishing seems to be defined and redefined willy-nilly. I bring this up here rather than on-list because I seek transparancy.--Elvey(t•c) 18:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: BBB says "We don't check an account just because someone suspects they are a sock puppet. Unless you have a master and evidence". But the guidance on when they should be performed and the cases where I see them performed don't seem to square with this at all. The guidance states, For example, it is not fishing to check an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sock puppetry. Yet BBB says the master must be known. This seems to be blatantly inconsistent. I ask that changes be made so that "checkuser requests handling is in accord with the on-wiki guidance on when they should be requested and performed." I care less how that is accomplished and more that checkuser decisions not be made based on whatever a particular checkuser says. (Some solutions: If these requests remain declines, the guidance needs to change. If the guidance doesn't change, the SPIs should occur. --Elvey(t•c) 19:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct?[edit]

According to Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee#Membership everyone lapsed at the end of last month. Does this subcommittee still exist? ϢereSpielChequers 22:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A fascinating question. At this point, I'd prefer ARBCOM to venture an answer rather than to give my own best guess. --joe deckertalk 17:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee

Leave a Reply