This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) at 16:12, 3 July 2014 (→Motion: Use of advanced permissions by AUSC members: typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motions

Shortcuts WP:ARM WP:ARBM This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (Arbitrators only) You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

Motion: Use of advanced permissions by AUSC members

Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) members are provided with the CheckUser and suppression tools in order to carry out their responsibilities. Historically, community appointees to the AUSC were discouraged from routine or regular use of either tool. Since appropriate procedures exist for excluding arbitrator or community AUSC members from cases in which they may be involved, there is not a compelling reason to continue to prohibit use of the CheckUser or suppression tools.

As such, members of the AUSC are explicitly permitted to use their advanced permissions for non-AUSC-related actions as allowed by the appropriate policies surrounding each permission, as members of the functionaries team. This is without regard to the presence of a backlog or time-sensitive situation.

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)
2. In the rare event an AUSC member's use of tools is before AUSC, they'll just be expected to recuse from that case. Seraphimblade 23:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
3. T. Canens (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
4. AGK 00:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
5. (Voting on this since my time away doesn't really start until tomorrow.) The Committee's request that AUSC members avoid using their CU or OS tools during their terms, except in the context of Subcommittee investigations or in emergency/backlog situations, has been controversial since its inception, but was justified by the need for the members to be independent in investigations. However, the number of matters handled by AUSC recently has been minimal (which is a good thing, as it suggests there have been relatively few disputes about the validity of checks and oversightings). As such, even assuming there was previously a reason for our asking three highly trusted and experienced functionaries to down their tools during their AUSC terms, at this point it is no longer justified, and the CU and OS teams can use the extra personpower. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
7. Worm(talk) 07:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
8. Salvio 07:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
10. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
11. If committee members can simply recuse from cases in which they are personally involved, AUSC members should be able to do the same. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

Community comments

• This is in line with the 2013 Ombudsman Commission decision, confirmed in the 2014 appointment process, that ombuds would be permitted to retain their permissions during their term. Risker (talk) 03:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Motion: AUSC term extensions

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 Commitee 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)
2. Seraphimblade 23:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
3. T. Canens (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Of necessity, as the timetable has gotten away from us. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Worm(talk) 07:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
7. Salvio 07:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
9. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
10. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• I was also asked and also said I was willing to stay. MBisanz 15:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)