Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/February 2009 election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee‎ | CheckUser and Oversight

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Radiant! (talk | contribs) at 17:32, 3 February 2009 (→‎So, consensus is irrelevant now?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

First impressions are the most important

I'm pleased this is happening finally. A community in action is a good thing. Synergy 01:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased as well, though I dislike how it is simple approval voting. How are we supposed to register our dislike for a candidate besides comments that many editors likely won't read through? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who is to say they won't be read? They're right above the voting area, so will likely be seen by most people. Most of these people have no issues anyway. Majorly talk 11:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please allow us to express disapproval. These are the kind of powers that it makes more sense to say "no fucking way" than "yes please". Grace Note (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, consider this. There are currently 6 candidates and 3 spots. Say the community dislikes administrators A, B, C, and F. How do we let you know that we only want D and E to be picked. Under the current system, we would have to pick the best of one of those evil four, and that doesn't sound very cool. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom retains complete authority to appoint checkuser/oversight, the election is merely advisory. The question being asked is not "Who should be elected to checkuser/oversight" but rather, "Of these editors we have already decided are suitable for appointment, whom do you prefer?" This is not necessarily a bad thing, and may be an improvement over direct appointments with no consultation. My concern is that there is no direction given on how to introduce negative information. By announcing these particular candidates, the Committee is presuming that they have already had a chance to privately consider any negatives about the candidates. At a minimum, the Committee should solicit negative information via email. I also expect that negative information will be posted to the question/comment section and talk page (unless the clerks censor it). Some sort of reasonably civil discussion should be permitted regardless of the voting system used. Thatcher 13:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The aim is that the commenting and questioning will complement ArbCom's vetting. People are free to introduce negative material (though the usual rules about civility apply) and editors can respond to it by voting, or not. Also, editors can also later withdraw support votes if they change their minds as a result of new material that comes to light. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually believe that? Look at similar process, like RFA. A handful of people stay and discuss, the majority vote and leave. As for the 25 vote thing, Kmweber managed to get more than 30 votes in support of his ArbCom candidacy. I presume the 25 vote rule in the global policy was mainly meant to prevent a small group of people from taking control of such things on small wikis, its pretty meaningless here. Mr.Z-man 16:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will an arbitration committee member please explain this to me

I'm really tired of having this question be ignored. I've probably asked it half a dozen times in several places and been outright ignored or given a partial non-answer each time I've asked it:

The only reason I can think of is that this system isn't about community trust at all, in which case its little more than a game. Mr.Z-man 16:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time frame?

When are we allowed to start asking questions of the candidates? Do we start now, or when the elections actually open? Tiptoety talk 05:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The initial 4-period runs from 6-9 Feb. The 10-day voting from 10-16 Feb. We're discussing about allowing questions now or not. This area may be the first part of the policy we need to clarify ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that you can ask questions once they've posted their statement. Before, might scare people off :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protected?

So, no questions or comments allowed from peons like me until voting actually starts? Thatcher 11:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, please unprotect now. Giggy (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you want a madhouse, I'd suggest the questions wait until you and the candidates are ready. Not all have accepted yet, and I think it would be a bad idea to unprotect now (but remove Mzm's question for East718 though). Synergy 13:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed the reason they were listed here is because they accepted the nomination (via email or something). Is this a bad assumption to make? Giggy (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but that could have been, how long ago? Synergy 13:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A day? Two? A week maybe?
I would hope arbcom didn't suck so much they were putting people who nominated themselves for this position years ago up, now. Please don't make it look like I have too much faith. Giggy (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If my own experience is anything to go by, some people are opening their talk page to find they've been nominated without prior approach from or to the committee, so you can indeed have faith. I for one am going to take a little time deciding how I wish to respond, so I'm delighted that the page remains protected for now, as I'd hate to see a barrage of objections to my candidature before I've even decided to be a candidate. --Dweller (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standard for approval

Does arbcom plan on setting down in advance a standard for approval or just winging it? I think there needs to be a requirement that some percentage of those voting need to support a particular candidate in order for them to be selected. If, for instance, all six checkusers were to get around 40 votes and they were mostly disjoint sets (meaning, everyone only voted for one person), then I would interpret that to mean that every candidate is opposed by 200 people. Eliminating the duplication of support/oppose is not per se horrible, but it does necessitate adding the option for a "blank ballot" (vote against everyone) and looking at support totals in terms of the total number of votes cast. In other words, the community needs to have the option to say, "no, we reject all six of these", "no, we reject five of these six", or on the flip side, "we trust all of these users and approve all of them". But whatever the standard for approval is, it needs to be set in advance, not just made up on the fly. --B (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From everything I've been told, "winging it" sounds about right. AFAICT, arbcom has pretty much made up their mind already and are just going to appoint the 3 with the most votes, as long as they have more than 25 in support. Mr.Z-man 16:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They don't even need 25. That requirement is for wikis that directly elect their checkusers/oversighters. Here Arbcom holds full authority to appoint people and the elections are purely advisory. If the best candidate got 3 votes, they could appoint him or her. (They could also close the elections on the last day, delete the pages, and appoint whomever they wish. It would be extremely foolish to do so, but it is within their authority). Thatcher 16:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reconfirmation

I believe current checkusers/oversights should be reconfirmed (maybe not in this election for those who have only been in for one or maybe two years, but it certainly shouldn't be a position automatically held for life). --Random832 (contribs) 14:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't for life. The draft policy says "Please note that CheckUser and Oversight permissions will be subject to periodic review". --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, by who though? Majorly talk 16:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Review Board! Synergy 17:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question

Hi. As I don't want to read through all discussions, just a quick question: Is this intended to be a vote or a !vote? — Aitias // discussion 16:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is evil remember? Majorly talk 16:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Majorly, what about simply answering my question? :) — Aitias // discussion 17:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, consensus is irrelevant now?

There are several things wrong here. First, the ArbCom doesn't create policy. Second, policy is made through discussion rather than voting. And third, turning a straw poll for "rough support" as a vote to make official policy is just misleading.

More importantly, the ArbCom simply isn't listening to dissenting remarks. The previous ArbCom was widely disliked because it got so out of touch with the community, so the new ArbCom isn't making a good start by ignoring people.

This is important because we've had arbiters in the past who strongly supported people like Kelly Martin or Essjay, who clearly did not have community trust. Approval voting makes it impossible to filter out such people. Simply put, ArbCom trust is not the same as community trust, and therefore the community needs a way to potentially say "none of the above" to any batch of candidates.

On the vote page for this "policy", I count 16 people who object to approval voting, and only two who express liking it. The other 50+ people didn't opine either way. This indicates that, standard voting has a LOT more support than approval voting. Sure, the page has 71% support now; but with a slight change, support would skyrocket to 83%. While consensus isn't expressed in percentages, it is obvious that larger community support is a Good Thing. Of course, that is precisely why this issue needs debate rather than a binary vote.

As it stands, this page is just the ArbCom declaring by fiat that consensus doesn't matter. And that is just sad. >Radiant< 17:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/February_2009_election&oldid=268284393"