| Revision as of 10:13, 11 June 2012 editMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 4d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 18.← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:04, 13 June 2012 edit undoMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Robot: Archiving 3 threads (older than 4d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 18.Next edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| :''']''' | :''']''' | ||
| == 2012 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Call for applications == | |||
| :''']''' | |||
| ::The statement: "Prospective candidates should be familiar with (i) the English Misplaced Pages CheckUser and Oversight policies; and (ii) the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy and related documents." leaves the impression that the call is for editors who want both permissions, but not just one or the other. I don't think this is the case.]] 14:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::That is a wrong impression for the truthful gist is that regardless of role, a working familiarity with each is requisite for either. While specific information is not exchanged, interactions are common, often necessary. The application will ask about all three and expect you to construct examples. ] (]) 17:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::: That surprises me. I reviewed the questions and answers at ]. I don't have a clue which IP ranges are used by ISPs in Turkey, to pick one response in the CU area, but I am unclear why I need to know this to determine whether a particular edit is eligible for oversight. I did feel that I could answer all the questions posed to those asking for Oversight, so I'm missing the overlap. (Technical, that is, I understand the overlap in areas of trust, but that's not an issue.) I haven't seen the actual application, so maybe that asks some questions I cannot answer adequately.]] 20:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's not what the original statement means, or what My76Strat was suggesting. All functionaries need to be familiar with both the CheckUser and Oversight policies to the extent that they provide guidance on the handling of private data. Checkusers and Oversighters will sometimes work together (to clear up after particularly abusive sockmasters posting OS-worthy material, for instance) and need to understand the limits of the other party's activities; and have an appreciation of how to treat private data generated from the 'other' tool when they encounter it. All functionaries are 'qualified' to receive private data, of any form, if required (as the exact counterpoint to private data ''not'' being shared with ''any'' other functionaries ''unless'' it is required); if a Checkuser needs to share CU data with an Oversighter to resolve an issue (or vice versa) then it will be shared, and handled appropriately. ]‑] 21:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Seconding Happy-melon here. It's the policies relating to both functions that you need to read up on, not how the tools work, as you might need to see information from the other tool at some point. ] (]) 21:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you are suggesting that it is routine for users with oversight to see the information generated by the checkuser tool or similarly as routine for a checkuser to see the suppressed information after suppression, for the needs of their own responsibility, then it is true that I am mistaken. For I disagree. I'll simply leave it there. ] (]) 23:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: <s>Could I suggest you try reading the thread again.</s> You, me and Happy-melon were apparently all saying the same thing up to this post of yours, now I don't know what your original response meant at all. ] (]) 23:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes you may Elen. I am surprised you still think so little of me so as to presume I hadn't. ] (]) 00:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I think highly of you. I just find you a little hard to understand sometimes. But in this case my concern is that Happy-melon also found you hard to understand maybe, and has interpreted what you were saying in the wrong way, as you now seem to be disagreeing with it. However, I phrased it badly now I look at it again - which is what I meant to say. Could you take a look at the thread again. I agreed with Happy-melon who thought he was agreeing with you, but you disagree with me, so we must have gone astray somewhere. ] (]) 00:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thank you Elen, I wish I could express myself better. The Lord knows that I try (ain't that right Lord Roem). To make a long story short, I just realized where I misread a passage from Happy-melon, and then further misapplied your endorsement of them as supporting the thing I had misread. Had I read it correctly at first, I would not have even had a comment. I suppose it's like yesterday when a user asked a question about a plant and I gave a medium length answer about a planet. I guess it's time for some new glasses. I apologize. ] (]) 01:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: No worries. I guess it was one of those "I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realise that what you heard is not what I meant..." ] (]) 02:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::<p>This is exactly one of those times; with a few more twists; worth untwisting. For you see, I had prepared a thoughtful reply for Sphilbrick 20:59. That edit conflicted with Happy-melon and before I could resolve it, wouldn't you know; my internet connection goes down; for hours. At first I was stuck; froze in edit mode; but able to see Happy's regards. I read his, and mine, and again, and I did feel we had essentially said the synonymous thing. My error was reading the first sentence, "That's not what the original statement means, or what My76Strat was suggesting.", and mentally processing it as if it implied; That's not what the original statement means, nor was My76Strat correct.</p><p>So I looked and looked to see where did we diverge so greatly that I needed being corrected. By the time my connection did restore, I had watched some tv, went to the store, and visited with my dad (all good). And I somehow forever lost the comment I did wish to publish for Sphilbrick (not so good). I return to find your comment which appears to imply; Happy is right, and it's kinda that way. I take this as two people who feel that correcting me was the right thing needed in this thread (falls in the not good range).</p><p>It wasn't until after we said what we said; when I copy pasted what he said to show you what I thought he said when I saw that what he said wasn't what I thought he said but in fact it was what you said you thought he had said; and I had already written many words that didn't need to be said now that I knew what he said was what you thought he said instead. So I erased them, and told you the short version. And now here, a bit more.</p><p>Before I do close here, I want to summarize the most important aspects of the <nowiki>{{ec}}</nowiki>comment I had for Sphilbrick that was lost: I think you would be a very good candidate and encourage you to go forward with requesting the trust. Peace - ] (]) 04:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)</p> | |||
| ::::::::: Thanks for all the responses. I had read the Checkuser policy before and reread it last night. My original impression had been that being a Checkuser required a skill set I hadn't acquired, and that still remains true. I failed to distinguish between policy and subject knowledge. However, I understand the policy, and accept that both permissions require a sensitivity to handing private information, so see why they are both listed. (And thanks for the !vote of confidence.)]] 11:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Has there ever been a user that was given checkuser or oversight permission that wasn't already an administrator?--] (]) 10:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::No. --] ] 10:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was not aware of the situation Risker pointed out below. However, it is still true that nobody was appointed directly as a checkuser or oversighter without having administrator permissions. That counts for something, right guys? Er, guys? Are you still there? </selfdeprecatinghumour> ;-) --] ] 10:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If we haven't, it's because we haven't had a serious candidate (that I can remember), not because of a blanket ban. ]‑] 11:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes. A former AUSC member, Bahamut0013, was not an administrator when he was appointed to the AUSC. ] (]) 10:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you both for responding.--] (]) 11:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Motion on Rich Farmbrough enforcement == | |||
| :''']''' | |||
| *I'm struggling to see the point of this motion because it doesn't do much more (and created far more drama) than a request to ] would have done. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 19:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Just an FYI - the discussions involving this and related motions can be found ''']'''. ] (]) 19:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Sorry to have to ask === | |||
| Is it a problem if RF (manually, of course) answers on his talk page whilst he's away? <small>]</small> 21:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :The block doesn't extend to removing talk page access, so I think it's fine if he answers questions on his page. ] (]) 21:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Speaking for myself, not the Committee, I see no problem with this. ] 01:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Motion on procedural motions == | |||
| :''']''' | |||
| Only 24 hours? I understand the general theory that Misplaced Pages time is faster than normal time, but 24 hours is awfully short. Can it be "at least a week" or something? --] (]) 03:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :If you read through the original motions and discussions (follow the link on the original announcement), you will see that it was originally a week, and then reduced to a day. I made a long comment pointing out (like you) that a day isn't really enough, and that the real difficulty is deciding what level of response within a day (or even a week) justifies withdrawing, modifying or abandoning the change being announced.<p> In practice, I don't expect this change in procedures to amount to much (it appears to have been started in response to objections about how the clarification/amendment merger was done and announced at this noticeboard with no preliminary notices). The key is that the principle of announcing substantive changes has been established (though really, that principle already existed, even if it might have been an unwritten one, and the problem is still deciding what is substantive). Anything after that depends. If something really controversial is announced, there will be enough reaction after a day, and people arriving after more than day will object if the day wasn't enough, and the discussion will likely be still going on even then.<p> The potential problems will be when some borderline change gets voted through, and someone does raise a valid objection (that ArbCom fail to foresee), but doesn't notice the change or raise their objection until several days have passed. The key then will be whether ArbCom are flexible enough to go back and change things again, and to recognise whether the 1-day notice period contributed to insufficient scrutiny of the change. Hopefully ArbCom won't be doing too much tweaking of processes, as this might lead to neglect of their core function of hearing and dealing with cases. ] (]) 07:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Amendment: Scientology (Lyncs) == | == Amendment: Scientology (Lyncs) == | ||
Revision as of 20:04, 13 June 2012
Shortcuts
|
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |