| Revision as of 21:51, 25 August 2022 editL235 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators27,345 edits draft← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:52, 28 August 2023 edit undoL235 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators27,345 edits + | ||
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| U4CBC thoughts | |||
| RfC proposal for BLOCKEVIDENCE, August 2022 | |||
| * "sanctions" -> "remedies". We've been trying to move away from "sanctions" for some time; see ]. | |||
| * A bit worried about the choice of regions. Do we know how many editors come from each region? | |||
| == RfC: Updating BLOCKEVIDENCE == | |||
| * This seems like a lot for a committee of 16 people to take on. In the spirit of the ''coordinating'' that the U4C is supposed to do, I will try to write up specific proposals on the ways in which the U4C can delegate its authority when appropriate, to reduce its overall caseload. | |||
| {{tlx|rfc|policy|prop}} | |||
| ** I also suggest that the U4C's subcommittees in some cases include non-U4C members. | |||
| ** The administrative support for U4C should be significant, professional, and confidential. Don't underestimate the challenge of establishing effective, e.g., CRM systems. | |||
| '''Should ] be updated to explicitly allow administrators to make blocks based on off-wiki evidence, as long as that evidence will be made available to all uninvolved administrators and recorded with the Arbitration Committee?''' 21:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ** Mail for the U4C should first go through a screening and organization process before directly going into the inbox of the U4C members. I recommend delegating the task of sorting mail, assigning internal tracking numbers, linking related mail, holding cases until they are ripe for decision before they go into U4C members' inboxes, etc., to trusted non-members or administrative support staff. | |||
| * Relationship between U4C and Global Council? | |||
| Currently, ], ], ''de facto'' community practice, and ] provide inconsistent guidance and are open to varying interpretations. The key point of contention is under which circumstances an administrator may block a user based on evidence that is not shared on-wiki. This disagreement recently received ] at the arbitration noticeboard talk page. The proposers of this RfC disagree on the current meaning of BLOCKEVIDENCE, but agree that it is both ambiguous and out-of-date with respect to current practices. It was written ], long before the advent of widespread ]/] blocks, which are often based on off-wiki evidence such as ] postings or, more trivially, Googling a username and finding a social media profile documenting a COI the user has denied. | |||
| * The U4C should establish an advisory group among high-level editors with NDA access, similar to the role of the English Misplaced Pages ] with the enwiki ArbCom. Perhaps a single mailing list for members of high-level decision making bodies as defined in the charter. | |||
| This proposed change to BLOCKEVIDENCE would explicitly allow administrators to block based on off-wiki evidence as long as that evidence will be made available to any uninvolved administrator upon request. In order to ensure the retention of evidence supporting these blocks, administrators would be required to record the evidence supporting these blocks with the Arbitration Committee when making these blocks. | |||
| {{tq2|1=If {{red|<del>a user needs to be blocked</del>}} {{green|<ins>an administrator blocks a user</ins>}} based on information that {{red|<del>will not be made available to all administrators</del>}} {{green|<ins>not all administrators have access to</ins>}}, that information should be {{green|1=<ins>submitted to the Arbitration Committee immediately after the block to ensure that the information is recorded in the event of any appeal.<ref>Administrators are also encouraged to do the same where their interpretation of on-wiki evidence might not be obvious to an administrator reviewing an unblock request—for instance, a ] block justified by subtle behavioral "tells".</ref> These blocks ] as "appeal only to ArbCom". Evidence supporting these blocks must be made privately available by the blocking administrator to any uninvolved administrator upon request (e.g. for the purpose of peer review or on appeal). In the event that the blocking administrator is unavailable to transmit the evidence, the Arbitration Committee will do so.</ins>}} {{red|1=<del>sent to the Arbitration Committee or a checkuser or oversighter for action. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls.</del>}} | |||
| {{green|1=<ins>If the blocking administrator is unwilling to share this evidence with any uninvolved administrator upon request, the administrator may not issue a block.</ins>}} The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed. {{green|1=<ins>Instead, the administrator should request action from the Arbitration Committee, or from the CheckUser or Oversight team, as appropriate. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls.</ins>}} | |||
| {{green|1=<ins>A separate set of requirements apply to</ins>}} {{red|1=<del>An exception is made for</del>}} administrators holding Checkuser or Oversight privileges; such administrators may block users based on non-public information revealed through the checkuser tool, or on edits that have been suppressed ("oversighted") and are inaccessible to administrators, {{green|1=<ins>without emailing the Arbitration Committee</ins>}}. {{red|1=<del>As such, an administrative action is generally viewed to be made in the user's capacity as an oversighter or checkuser, although the action itself is an administrative one.</del>}} {{green|1=<ins>These blocks are considered to be Checkuser or Oversight actions, as appropriate, although the technical action to issue a block is an administrative one.</ins>}} All such blocks are subject to direct review by the Arbitration Committee.}} | |||
| {{cot|old}} | |||
| {{tq2|1=If a user needs to be blocked based on information that will not be made available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the ] or a ] or ] for action. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed.{{pb}} | |||
| An exception is made for administrators holding ] or ] privileges; such administrators may block users based on non-public information revealed through the checkuser tool, or on edits that have been suppressed ("oversighted") and are inaccessible to administrators. As such, an administrative action is generally viewed to be made in the user's capacity as an oversighter or checkuser, although the action itself is an administrative one. All such blocks are subject to direct review by the ].}} | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| {{cot|new}} | |||
| {{tq2|1=If an administrator blocks a user based on information that not all administrators have access to, that information should be submitted to the Arbitration Committee immediately after the block to ensure that the information is recorded in the event of any appeal.<ref>Administrators are also encouraged to do the same where their interpretation of on-wiki evidence might not be obvious to an administrator reviewing an unblock request—for instance, a ] block justified by subtle behavioral "tells".</ref> These blocks ] as "appeal only to ArbCom". Evidence supporting these blocks must be made privately available by the blocking administrator to any uninvolved administrator upon request (e.g. for the purpose of peer review or on appeal). In the event that the blocking administrator is unavailable to transmit the evidence, the Arbitration Committee will do so. | |||
| If the blocking administrator is unwilling to share this evidence with any uninvolved administrator upon request, the administrator may not issue a block. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed. Instead, the administrator should request action from the Arbitration Committee, or from the CheckUser or Oversight team, as appropriate. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls. | |||
| A separate set of requirements apply to administrators holding Checkuser or Oversight privileges; such administrators may block users based on non-public information revealed through the checkuser tool, or on edits that have been suppressed ("oversighted") and are inaccessible to administrators, without emailing the Arbitration Committee. These blocks are considered to be Checkuser or Oversight actions, as appropriate, although the technical action to issue a block is an administrative one. All such blocks are subject to direct review by the Arbitration Committee.}} | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| If this proposal is successful, the change would be communicated to all administrators via MassMessage, as has been done with past changes to blocking procedure. ] would also be updated to reflect this change to blocking policy. Finally, the Arbitration Committee would be recommended to establish a new unmonitored VRTS queue to receive evidence supporting these blocks (distinct from its handling of "appeal only to ArbCom" blocks), with ticket numbers that can be included in the block log. | |||
| Co-signed:<br/> | |||
| <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she|they|xe)</span><br/> | |||
| ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:52, 28 August 2023
U4CBC thoughts
- "sanctions" -> "remedies". We've been trying to move away from "sanctions" for some time; see User:L235/sanctions verbiage.
- A bit worried about the choice of regions. Do we know how many editors come from each region?
- This seems like a lot for a committee of 16 people to take on. In the spirit of the coordinating that the U4C is supposed to do, I will try to write up specific proposals on the ways in which the U4C can delegate its authority when appropriate, to reduce its overall caseload.
- I also suggest that the U4C's subcommittees in some cases include non-U4C members.
- The administrative support for U4C should be significant, professional, and confidential. Don't underestimate the challenge of establishing effective, e.g., CRM systems.
- Mail for the U4C should first go through a screening and organization process before directly going into the inbox of the U4C members. I recommend delegating the task of sorting mail, assigning internal tracking numbers, linking related mail, holding cases until they are ripe for decision before they go into U4C members' inboxes, etc., to trusted non-members or administrative support staff.
- Relationship between U4C and Global Council?
- The U4C should establish an advisory group among high-level editors with NDA access, similar to the role of the English Misplaced Pages functionaries with the enwiki ArbCom. Perhaps a single mailing list for members of high-level decision making bodies as defined in the charter.