Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

What this page is for:: This page is for discussion of formal announcements by the Committee, including clarification of the specifics of notices.
What this page is not for:: To request arbitration, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. For information on the Committee, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. To report a violation of a Committee decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by .

Changes in Checkuser/Oversight permissions

Original announcement

My thanks to Mackensen, Vassyana and Luna for their contribution. I appreciate that the Committee is keeping an eye on this situation and taking appropriate steps. Skomorokh 22:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning that it appears we burned out Vassyana and Luna, who I have immense respect for. Thanks for all you two were able to do over the years.

Mackensen, thanks, and looking forwards to more great content. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, people come and go, but all the more unfortunate when the trustworthy disappear. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Original announcement

Exceptional individuals wanted for challenging two-year assignment

You are:

Y an effective communicator with a sound grasp of policy;

Y able to see all aspects of a problem and find solutions;

Y courteous, disciplined and open-minded;

Y able to deal calmly with trolls, bigots and editors with issues;

Y able to make up your own mind under stress.

If you can answer "yes" to most of the above, you are probably arbitrator material. Learn more about standing in the upcoming election. But don't delay, nominations close very soon!

Tony (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC), for the election coordinators[reply]

PS: YYou must also be able to prove your real name (with a copy of your passport) to "The Office" in case any litigation as a result of your actions arise. Giacomo 17:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The purpose of providing identification is to verify age. All editors are responsible for their actions, regardless of whether or not they are identified. Risker (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion about this thread has been opened at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#I'm loth to say "censorship" but... ╟─Treasury Tag►high seas─╢ 19:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of ..grasp of policy, I'm afirmative on the other points. PS: Nobody's going to know my real name or see my passport; No way, Jose. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've just learned (see below) an ID is indeed required, though not necessarily a passport. Maybe the same should be required of admins. I don't think it is. However, ArbCom sits a bit higher in the food chain, and obviously they need to know who each other are so they can fully trust each other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I reckon then, I won't be seeking the arbitrator's hat. Everyone, please hold back your disappointments. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm crushed. But that might be due to the 16-ton weight that just fell on me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Giggle Giggle, we're a load of laughs. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deletion of comments from this page

Can I ask that this conversation not be removed - it was moved here from ANI as a more approppriate location. Thanks - Black Kite (t) (c) 20:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I've been advised that this would be the appropriate venue to discuss the issue I raised here – namely, the repeated deletion of non-disruptive comments from this page without any clear reason. I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on this? ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 20:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "passport" stuff about? Is that for real, or is Giacomo also just being funny? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true—see here for the ins and outs of it. – iridescent 20:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite confirms that some kind of ID is required, but not necessarily a passport, just a valid ID of some kind (I'm supposing a driver's license would do). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would I have deleted your comment? No. Would I have edit warred against multiple editors to reinstate a joke that adds absolutely nothing to the discussion? No. --Onorem ♠Dil 20:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^What they said. The comment itself wasn't trolling or any kind of problem, but the edit warring to reinstate it, and the fuss made about it probably was. AD 20:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could easily argue that the first one who deleted it is actually the cause of the "fuss". However, TT could have used the small template and telegraphed that he was being funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He actually did link to joke - I don't know why it was such a big issue. AD 20:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought the purpose of the ID was to have an enforceable nondisclosure agreement for users with access to private info, not just age checking. Re Treasury Tag: the removed comment wasn't quite disruptive, but it was irrelevant clutter, and getting worked up about the removal (whether there are multiple reverts or not) is unhelpful. Best to just let it go. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]