Questions are welcome! Just ask. KnightLago (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are the questions in the questionnaire, just out of interest? I'm going to post another question below too. Aiken ♫ 18:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best just to request a questionnaire. There is no obligation to complete it. –xeno^talk 18:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, how exactly will this election be run? A straight vote with a 75% support rate to pass? Will it be public, as with RFA, or private like for Arbcom? Thanks for your answers! Aiken ♫ 18:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see this has now been clarified. Aiken ♫ 18:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the page on CheckUser and Oversight elections for answers to a lot of commons questions. We are unsure of the number of open positions as of yet. We will be using SecurePoll. KnightLago (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to mention that being 18 is a prerequisite to getting either permission. I doubt this would disqualify many likely candidates, but I can think of a few highly experienced editors to this project who don't meet that requirement. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've added a note to that effect (and to the fact that identification is required). — Coren ^(talk) 20:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that these posts are only open to adminstrators (which is perfectly reasonable); if so, shouldn't the announcement say "experienced administrators" instead of "experienced editors"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why they are open only to admins. Though I think that non-admins probably don't have a chance of being elected - RFA is hard enough! :) Aiken ♫ 00:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers pretty much have to have administrator bits, since the work frequently requires administrator actions (in particular, blocking and unblocking.) Further, checkuser implies the ability to look at deleted edits. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a case that it's not required, but it's probably a good idea to have it, and it is highly unlikely that any non-admin would be a successful candidate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

There have been several non-admins who ran for arbcom, though I don't remember any actually being elected. If one was, I'd expect they'd get any relevant bits unless some serious problem emerged. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect not. People go through the RFA process to get the right to wield specific tools; I don't see any policy suggesting ArbCom can grant admin status to anyone who has not gone through RFA (granted, there are exceptions resulting from de-sysoppings). I'd think any 'crat who turned on someone's admin bit in this way would be tarred and perhaps feathered. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can Jimbo turn on the admin bit? If so, that would be one pathway to non-admins becoming checkusers & oversighters -- they'd have to be elected first, accepted by Arbcom, and then Jimbo, if he agreed that the candidate was aceceptable, would turn on the bit, which would be turned off if they gave up the job. (Not advocating for this, just speculating.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo doesn't have the bureaucrat right, although I'm not quite sure what his "founder" right does. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:User access levels#Founder -- œ^™ 09:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure there is some random outlier, I cannot imagine there being a person who could get 70%+ in a checkuser election and fail an RFA, so this seems more like an academic discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin than an actual problem. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so -- all I was initially suggesting was that the announcement be changed to say "administrators" rather than "editors", since that seems more accurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it is a de facto requirement, nothing other than the above-mentioned technical issues preclude an editor from applying. –xeno^talk 19:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One consideration for many who might be willing to volunteer for one of these positions would be time commitment. I know it must be hard to estimate, but were one to become a CheckUser or an Oversighter, how much time could one expect to spend per week reading e-mails, discussing issues with other functionaries, and actually utilizing the tools in question? If there's more work as a CheckUser than an Oversighter (or vice-versa) then that might be good to know too. My apologies if this information is available somewhere already.

Another issue that could be relevant to the decision to "run" or not is the number of candidates who eventually stand for each position. If there is a bit of a dearth in terms of qualified candidates as the deadline for applications nears, you might want to offer a nudge and point out that you need more people to run. There are probably a number of people who would be willing (and able) to take on the added work of a CheckUser or an Oversighter but are not going to jump at the opportunity if there are enough people already interested. If the latter is not happening you can probably draw some more people out of the woodwork with a couple of noticeboard posts shortly before the deadline to request an application. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On your second point, I recall an 'urgent call for applications' in the last AUSC elections - so if there is a dearth of candidacies we will likely hear about it. –xeno^talk 20:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, oversighters may spend 1-3 hours/week carrying out their tasks, mostly in small increments of five minutes here and ten minutes there spread out throughout the day/week, with perhaps an additional half hour or so to read any relevant mailing list discussions. The key for oversighters is availability, and there is a particular need for oversighters who are available from about 0300 UTC to 1200 UTC.

Checkusers should be prepared to carry out a few SPIs a week; these can take anywhere from 10 minutes to 10 hours depending on the complexity of the individual case. They may also need to make themselves available to discuss their findings with their colleagues, and may be called upon to work in tandem with one or more other checkusers on complex cases. Checkusers also need to keep an eye on the global checkuser mailing list and be prepared to carry out checks based on data from that list. Total time commitment for checkusers will average about 2-4 hours/week, with some weeks exceeding that total significantly. Checkusers in particular are expected to make "difficult" blocks from time to time.

I hope that individuals who see themselves as candidates for either of these roles will let us know; we have looked at all individuals who have put themselves forward to this point, and it would be unfortunate to miss someone with particularly helpful qualifications simply because there was an impression there were "enough" candidates. Risker (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your reply Risker (and also Xeno); it is quite helpful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting time period regarding desired Oversighter availability, since I should have thought that the ratio of applicants somewhat proportionate to the number of contributors over a 24 hour period (X% of edits to WP by editors from USA, X% Oversighters from that area - per the normal editing day). Is anyone able to comment on whether some "serial" serious policy violators are editing outside of normal editing times for their locations in an effort to have their edits remain for longer than would be the case normally? (Please delete that last query if it is deemed to be too much of a "how to" guide to novice trolz) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about the question, LHvU; it's an entirely reasonable one. We try to respond to oversight requests fairly promptly; one of the reasons is that the longer qualifying edits are on the site, the higher the chance that someone else will notice them, or that they will be caught in a routine data dump. We don't have a lot of control on when problematic edits are made (or noticed), although they seem to be more common late at night from the time zone of the originating editor. Thus, it's helpful to have oversighters who are available in different time zones or are active at different times of the day. Risker (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great day to start. Maurreen (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It started on March 31. KnightLago (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just late. Sorry to bother you. Maurreen (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. KnightLago (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy cat was added to this page. If it were a policy, it would I guess be procedural policy; I don't know, does this look like a procedural policy page? - Dank (push to talk) 02:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, it's not policy so much as it is just a notice of how we're proceeding. It's policy-related, I suppose, but I don't see the point of a hatnote about it. — Coren ^(talk) 02:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe it is possible to overstress the fact that the majority of oversighters and checkusers have been "outed" or otherwise had their personal privacy violated in some form or other over the past few years. In some cases, this has led to varying degrees of harassment outside of Wikipedia that have included contacts with employers, family members, and attempts at personal confrontation. Users with advanced permissions are much more likely to be subject to commentary at external sites specialising in critique of the project; active participation in some of those sites has been found to be a double-edged sword by some. If you normally edit with a pseudonym and do not intend to disclose your "real" identity publicly, standing for election for checkuser or oversighter is probably one of the least effective methods of keeping your private and Wikipedia identities separate. I don't want to dissuade any qualified candidates from running, but I do think it important for all candidates to do so with their eyes wide open. There is really very little that the Arbitration Committee or the project can do to prevent off-wiki speculation on identity, or to keep those with a history of off-wiki harassment from expanding their targets; those who participate in such activities are usually already banned from the project, or have never participated in the first place. Risker (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; that is something to consider. I've already been "outed" by the folks at Wikipedia Review merely as an admin. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only people likely to even be considered as candidates will be fully aware of the situation re. outing. Aiken ♫ 18:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Who at Wikipedia Review are you claiming has "outed" you? A quick search shows that neither your username nor your real name has ever been mentioned at WR on any occasion. – iridescent 18:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means the Wikipedia Hivemind. Jafeluv (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I become a Checkuser? --White Trillium (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple - follow the instructions on the page. Aiken ♫ 15:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's how to stand in the election. To actually become one probably requires at least two years of service, a successful RFA, and trust from a broad segment of the community. Since White Trillium isn't even eligible to vote in the election, it is doubtful that the committee would approve his application to stand in the election. –xeno^talk 15:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any on-wiki discussion on whether we should change from the straight-up voting precedent to securepoll for checkuser and oversghter elections? It's quite the change to make without any community input. One of the things that defines Wikipedia is our open, transparent style and this type of democracy-creep seems to be undermining it. There should have been an on-wiki discussion about this, and if there was one it should have been more widely advertised. ThemFromSpace 18:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the latest arbcom election was done that way, I can only assume it's the new fad to use the securepoll. I don't agree with it, nor do I agree with the way there was no discussion (even discussion if we need more functionaries), but as it's soon enough, and we literally just "agreed" to use securepoll for a similar thing there is little point. Aiken ♫ 18:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call me a heretic if you must, but I like it. There is still an opportunity to discuss the candidate, and to ask them questions and evaluate their answers, it's only the actual vote itself that is secret, which I believe is a good thing because it encourages users to use their vote the way they see fit without "wiki-politics" or concern over how they might be viewed because of their vote clouding the issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there wasn't, nor was there need to. Strictly speaking, the Committee can just appoint people to CU and OS by fiat — or by rolling dice — though I of course approve of the much better approach of getting the community to pick: those are positions where trust is paramount. Experience has now shown with three consecutive SecurePoll elections that this approach is a faster and (relatively) drama free way of selecting people and ArbCom has elected to retain it for future CU and OS appointments.

(I should note that this should come as no surprise to anyone: not only was it used with success in the last ArbCom elections, but it was also used for the previous AUSC elections). — Coren ^(talk) 19:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, I think I was thinking of the Steward elections or something. Anyway, since the candidates will all be admins they have already been vetted by the community, and ArbCom takes another close look at them before offering their name for election, so it's unlikely anyone who was grossly unqualified would slip through, discussion or no. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worthwhile to explain why the committee decided to do things in this order: what we look for when vetting candidates is reasons to believe that private information might not be safe in the hands of the candidate. We also, to save everyone's time and effort, "skim off" candidates that have no chance of being elected, or candidacies that are complete "jokes". This is done before the election for two reasons: (a) it keeps the fact that a candidate chose to apply but was rejected private if the candidates so chooses, and (b) it avoids the possible drama of ArbCom having to discard a selected candidate after being elected for reasons that cannot be made public. Once that vetting is done, the candidates that are left are all "okay" as far as the Committee is concerned — any of those might have been appointed in the "old way". Therefore, given the high trust implicit in letting editors access private information, the best thing to do at this point is let the community decide who they most trust to have that access.

It's important to note that the vetting is done strictly on a "can trust with private information" basis; and any candidate who feels they have been unfairly or politically excluded is welcome to say so: that the selection is done before the election is a courtesy to the candidate's privacy. — Coren ^(talk) 14:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that there are pros and cons with regards to open vs. closed elections. Yes, open elections are more transparent but can easily be affected by groupthink. Closed elections help remedy the problem that an open election would cause, but OTOH it's not really transparent. –MuZemike 15:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyone considering applying should be aware that checkusers and oversighters (and candidates for these permissions) are subject to considerable internal and external scrutiny. This scrutiny can include attempts to investigate on- and off-wiki activities, and can result in revealing personal details of the candidates or contacts with employers, family or others."

This is a friendly way of saying "if you apply and we don't like you, we'll post your personal details all over the wiki and get away with it becuase we're ArbCom", isn't it? Gurch (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, no, Gurch. It means that Wikipedians will go over one's contributions with a fine-toothed comb (the internal scrutiny), and that neither Arbcom nor WMF nor the editing community can prevent anyone on external websites from making guesses (accurate or not) or allegations about those who put themselves forward for advanced permissions (the external scrutiny). While this sometimes happens with editors who hold no advanced permissions at all, the risk of someone trying to post personal information off-wiki about a Wikipedian is significantly higher for admins, and extremely high for checkusers and oversighters. To my knowledge, there is no situation where an arbitrator has ever posted the personal details of an oversight or checkuser candidate onwiki that wasn't already publicly stated by the candidate. Risker (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sure read that as "ArbCom may call your employer or family for information about you if you apply for CU or OS". It's especially confusing because it's not clarified whether "internal scrutiny" refers to scrutiny inside ArbCom or just inside Wikipedia in general. Jafeluv (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not required to identify yourself to ArbCom to apply for CU or OS bits, only to the Foundation. Happy‑melon 16:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity in our statement, Jafeluv; on reading it from your perspective, I can see where your interpretation came from. I have modified the statement somewhat, in the hopes that it is more clear. Gurch, I hope this also is responsive to your concerns. The Arbitration Committee has not ever contacted someone's family or employer when reviewing an application for checkuser or oversight, as far as I know, and I can't imagine the circumstances in which any arbitrator would think it was a reasonable thing to do. Risker (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is in charge of checking the email? Sent a request for an application and still haven't heard anything back. Q ^{T C} 00:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patience please. I replied to the email you sent yesterday a few minutes ago. KnightLago (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By this point, all who returned a completed application have been sent an email confirming receipt of the application. If you sent an application, and did not receive an email confirming that the Committee received your application, please let us know immediately. KnightLago (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like quite a few candidates weren't vetted. Not enough brown-nosing to the Cabal™? --MZMcBride (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by this? Aiken ♫ 16:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few more invitations to stand for election have been offered for Oversight permissions; we are awaiting confirmation from those candidates that they are still interested. Nonetheless, it is correct that several other editors put their names forward but were not vetted. That is not a reflection on those individuals as editors or administrators, as many of them have made significant contributions to the project. As has been expressed several times in the past, the granting of checkuser and oversight permissions is a fiduciary duty of the Arbitration Committee, and the WMF has designated the Committee to appoint only those candidates in whom we have sufficient confidence that they will be competent and to work within current policy. The vetting process screens out those candidates about whom arbitrators have any concerns in this area. Those individuals whose applications were not vetted are welcome to contact KnightLago or myself, and either of us will be happy to provide them with more personalised suggestions, but it is unfair to those individuals, who are without exception editors in good standing, to discuss their applications in a public forum. Risker (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More and more, I'm in favor of a direct election of anyone wishing to stand. One of the current candidates has been an administrator on this project for about twelve minutes, for example. It's already a popularity contest (hmwith, anyone?), so I don't see why it needs to be a pre-vetted one. Plenty of wikis get along with direct standing elections. Plenty of wikis also get along with no Arbitration Committee. You have to wonder if, at the end of the day, the existence of such a body is helping or hurting the overall project. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really fair. Hmwith was elected on her own merits. I do think though, that anyone should be able to stand. This vetting of candidates does not reflect community opinion. Aiken ♫ 17:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line, one of the specified roles of the Arbitration Committee is the management of checkuser and oversight permissions, and that is one of the factors that community members do (or at least should) consider when voting for Arbcom candidates. It's a telling commentary that we can pretty well count on complaints when we are doing our job, at least as frequently as complaints that we aren't doing our job. I think MZM could be a little more forthright on why he finds this all so terribly disturbing, but there's no requirement for him to share that information. Risker (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should arbcom have anything to do with it? Aiken ♫ 17:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a WMF policy, not a local one. If you would like to change it, you will need to convince the Board of Directors. Risker (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"On a wiki without an Arbitration Committee that meets the criterion above, or where the community prefers independent elections, two options are possible..." What if the community preferred independent elections? Aiken ♫ 17:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We'd change the definition of "community" until we had a group who didn't. – iridescent 17:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

meta:Oversight policy#Access allows for elections independent of ArbCom. -Atmoz (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be better if the ArbCom approve the result after voting, just like Jimbo approves the ArbCom election results after voting. Sole Soul (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather you yell at me now, when I am confident that everyone who is put forward is qualified, competent, and whose understanding of the applicable policies has been explored, rather than afterward when the "popularity contest" (as MZMcBride calls it) has resulted in apparent success for popular people with a history of indiscretion, significant policy violation or a lack of competency in the skillset required. I won't sign off for anyone like that, because it's my neck on the line when they mess up, and I'm the one who has to fix the problem. Also keep in mind that Jimbo essentially endorses the community decision after a far more extensive community-based vetting process, and that everyone really knows what arbitrators do because what we do is highly visible. That can't be said of either checkusers or oversighters. Risker (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators 1) are elected by a "popularity contest" (as you apparently believe it to be), 2) are not elected based on any technical skills, 3) and not everyone knows what they really do with the checkuser and the oversight tools. The real difference is that the ArbCom does not have a say on how arbs get elected, so they philosophize about how this is different. Sole Soul (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• All I can say here is that if it was a popularity contest to get vetted, I can't fathom how I got in and I resent the implication that I had to kiss ArbComs ass to do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All administrators are ass-lickers, else they wouldn't be administrators for long. Just an observation, nothing personal. Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's undoubtedly a political element to becoming an admin, but staying an admin doesn't really require much effort or sycophancy. It's hard to get in, but once you're in, it's almost impossible to get kicked out. Kind of like the medical profession, except that people take Wikipedia adminship much more seriously. :P MastCell ^Talk 20:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair point. That's what I meant really. Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

xeno, PeterSymonds, and OverlordQ: I suppose their applications are just in the review queue and will be posted shortly? Meanwhile, LessHeard vanU is ArbCom vetted®, when his position on private matters is: "Should I receive information by private means I shall consider that the sender has waived any claim of copyright or privacy on their part of the message and has obtained such permission on the part of any third parties whose post(s) form part of the message."

Am I being forthright enough? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't publicly comment on anyone who isn't a vetted candidate, and I trust that you have received the permission of those you have identified before publicly doing so. Meanwhile, perhaps you might like to ask LHvU about his change in policy with respect to private information, something that was indeed discussed with the Committee. That would be a good question to ask the candidate. Risker (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is trying to be said, as nicely as possible, is that several good candidates have not been vetted by arbcom. It should not be up to arbcom to decide who is or who is not a good candidate. The three editors mentioned by MZMcBride are all admins in good standing with no reason not to be included here. Aiken ♫ 21:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think he is saying that his IRC buddies didn't get vetted, and he's ticked off. The reasons that we don't publish our reviews on non-vetted candidates is that we have often turned up issues that their friends may not even be aware of, sometimes involving private issues that cannot be publicly discussed. Risker (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use IRC, and I don't make buddies on here, and yet I also find it odd those candidates have not been chosen as well. They are admins in good standing, yes? Then there isn't a problem. If there was, they should not be admins. It's all very well pointing to evidence nobody can see, but I have yet to see one good argument for arbcom doing this instead of the community. Other communities manage it well enough. Aiken ♫ 21:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And who turned up any possible private issues of the current arbitrators when they got elected? Sole Soul (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IRC buddies? I think I've seen xeno on IRC twice ever. NickServ confirms he last identified in November 2009. I'm curious how the Arbitration Committee came to the conclusion that the person who has said (quite publicly) that they have no issue releasing private information is a good candidate to handle private information. I can ask the candidates, I suppose, though. As for me being "ticked off," that's kind of insane. You think I couldn't get a CheckUser or a suppression if/when I need one? Come on. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would a fair summary of this thread be "Some editors disagree with the Arbitration Committee's perception of some of the candidate's suitability for CU/OS"?? If so, how does the imminent community election with minimum support requirements fall short of resolving this concern? Happy‑melon 22:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because editors cannot even run in the upcoming election if ArbCom does not believe they would be suitable for the role... NW (Talk) 22:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any objective evidence to indicate that this has even happened, let alone be a concern? Since I assume MZMcBride has neither hacked into the permissions email account, nor been a legitimate recipient of its messages, I do not entirely understand the provenance of his list of alleged rejected candidates. Happy‑melon 22:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is fairly likely that OverlordQ did indeed apply per #So. I am not sure where MZMcBride received the other two names. NW (Talk) 00:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that does indicate that OverlordQ requested an application. The application contains some hopefuly-illuminating questions about CU and OS which aims to clarify the role for candidates. There is the opportunity for the candidate to ask any questions they have, which may lead to a dialogue. Finally, vetted candidates are asked whether they wish to accept a nomination, which they are welcome to refuse. There is as much, if not more, scope for candidates to withdraw their own applications if they realise that CU/OS is perhaps not for them; than for the Committee to reject applicants. Unless you get a clarification from the people you believe were rejected, you have no idea why they do not appear at this stage. And since the reasons people may withdraw may well be private (I very nearly withdrew my own OS candidacy for reasons that I would never explain in public) that may not be forthcoming. It's probable that any withdrawn candidate is not going to thank people who discuss their aborted candidacy in public; that's pretty much the whole point of the process. Happy‑melon 07:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, it's (very) well established that I run the entire Internet. Even Wikipedia says so, so you know it must be true.^[1] I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to guess my thoughts about where you can stick your provenance. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That did admittedly make me smile; but it doesn't answer the question. :D Happy‑melon 07:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand people being a bit pissed that certain folks who seem qualified to stand in these elections are not allowed to, however given that the ArbCom's remit to make these choices apparently comes from the WMF I'm not sure much can be done about it. Also there's obviously a certain logic to vetting candidates for a sensitive position like Checkuser, and I've no idea what the better option is for the "vetting committee" other than ArbCom (excepting MZMcBride of course, but running the entire internet probably leaves that editor little time for vetting—I know because I previously ran the internet briefly in the mid-late 1930s, during which time my "I'll vet your Supreme Court candidate, Mr. Roosevelt" side business went off the rails somewhat and allowed that damn Hugo Black d-bag to get on the court).

But as I said it's understandable if there's some anger when a seemingly qualified candidate gets denied entry to the election—folks tend to mistrust decisions made in camera that don't make sense on the face. Probably the only solution (because bickering about it here perhaps isn't one) is for any editor who feels they were wrongfully denied standing as a candidate to ask why that was the case. If they think the reason given by an Arb via e-mail is bullshit, they should tell the rest of us about it, and if "we" think it's bullshit, then probably the ArbCom will have people all up in their business and maybe (maybe) the process will get changed. If the reasons given for denying certain candidatures are not widely perceived to be bullshit, then maybe (probably) we should not worry about it. As of now I'm taking no stance on the presence (or lack thereof) of bullshit, but the point is I think there are ways for individual candidates to raise concerns directly to the community if they feel they were slighted. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've received a response to my query; and while I am still disappointed that I will not be standing in this election to serve the community as an oversighter, I have a greater understanding as to why my applications was not vetted. I would like to thank everyone who expressed their regrets, and offer my condolences to the oversight-l team who will have to deal with at least another year of my bothersome requests =). –xeno^talk 16:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you be able to tell us why arbcom did not want you running? Aiken ♫ 16:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If the would-be candidate is satisfied with the reason, does it really matter what it was? Obviously there could be some privacy related issues (even minor ones). Personally I thought it odd that Xeno was not allowed to stand since in my view that editor would have been an excellent candidate, but if Xeno is okay with the reason given then I'm certainly not going to get upset about it. Of course other candidates who didn't "make the grade" for whatever reason might feel differently about the response they get from ArbCom.. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly, if any of the other applicants would like to have direct, private feedback, we will be happy to provide that; indeed, Xeno is the first who has ever directly requested it. I will stress that *all* of the applicants were users in good standing (which has not always been the case), and that several may well be suitable candidates in the future given more experience, continued personal development within the project, and the necessity of balancing the systemic issues such as service accessibility with the personal qualities that have been shown over time to be the best fit for the role(s). Risker (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• From your wording, it appears that no candidate was rejected for concerns raised about private issues. Instead, they were denied the ability to run based on Arbitrators' individual thoughts about them. Please correct me if I misunderstood something, but that doesn't seem very proper to me. Should the community as a whole not be the one to decide whether or not a candidate's experience on the wiki is enough for this position? NW (Talk) 17:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NuclearWarfare, that sounds sadly like you're implying the community reserves the right to beat up the candidates in a public forum. We've already seen what's happening at RFA, and even in the last Arbitration Committee election, where very good, well qualified, editors refuse to run because of the hostility that is routinely shown even though it is often completely unrelated to the reality of the responsibility. Please read my comment below in the next section, where I talk about what appears to be a significant divergence between how the community perceives these functions, and what they need to be in order to serve the project. Risker (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I meant, and I do apologize if my comment was unclear. What I meant was that I think these candidates who were rejected (Xeno at least, I don't know if OverlordQ and PeterSymonds were rejected or if they withdrew) were all excellent candidates who could have helped out the project greatly with oversight access. I certainly would have supported all of them and I imagine that any one of them could have been elected had they been allowed to run. And if elected, I do not believe that any one of them would have viewed the tool as a nice trinket or bauble, but something they could use to help the project. If individual arbitrators disagree, they are free to vote in opposition, but they should do so as community members. I am of the view that the Arbitration Committee should only reject a candidate if it is clear that they will not be suitable for the role based on information that cannot be shared in public, and especially not if there is a chance that they will be elected. I believe most active administrators view the sysop bit as nothing more than a set of tools to use to clean up Wikipedia, and those who are elected as functionaries will likely be much the same. NW (Talk) 19:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community elections[edit]

According to Meta/WMF policy, it is possible for elections to be held independent of arbcom, which would be much more ideal than the current way of doing things. How would such a change be carried out? Aiken ♫ 12:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF OS/CU access policy doesn't say quite what you think it does. On wikis with an Arbitration Committee, that Committee is responsible for controlling access to CU/OS. Stewards will only respond to requests to grant or remove the bits when made by a Committee member. What the policy is saying is that the Committee may appoint Checkusers or Oversighters by fiat, or they can hold independent community elections and scrutinise the results. That is, projects can decide whether or not to give the community a voice in the process, but the policy does not allow the voice of the Committee to be silenced. What we do now is already about as far as we can go to making the process community-driven. The only step further we could take would be for the Committee to scrutinise candidates after the election. Which is basically just swapping one source of drama for another (probably greater) one. Happy‑melon 12:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. "On wikis with an arbitration committee elected with 25-30 editors' approval, users may also be appointed by the arbitration committee (unless the local community prefers independent elections)." My emphasis. However much some of them may think otherwise, Arbcom are members of the community, not the High Priests of Wikipedia; they have as much or as little power as everyone else chooses for them to have. The community may well prefer Arbcom to do the appointing—there are good arguments in favor—but I don't recall anyone ever asking. – iridescent 12:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you would care to quote the full passage, you have a better picture of what paths are actually available: "On wikis with an arbitration committee... users may also be appointed by the arbitration committee (unless the local community prefers independent elections). After agreement, a member of the arbitration committee should place a request on Steward requests/Permissions" (my emphasis). On wikis with Arbitration Committees, requests to grant OS permissions will not be actioned unless they come from a sitting member of the Committee, and the agreement of the Committee is expected before that request is placed. Happy‑melon 03:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's odd, and this probably explains why Happy-melon and Iridescent are offering contradictory interpretations, is that the CheckUser and Oversight policies regarding "access" are actually different on Meta. As Iridescent says, the Oversight policy does indeed seem to allow "independent elections" that apparently (at least as worded) would not require any candidate vetting by ArbCom or anyone else. The CheckUser policy on access says nothing about an "independent elections" option but instead unambiguously declares that "CheckUsers can be appointed by the Arbitrators only" (this applies only to Wikis with an ArbCom obviously, the election option is mentioned only for those Wikis who do not have an ArbCom). I'm not sure if that difference between the CU and OS access policies was intentional (I suppose it could be since CheckUser access presumably gives more access to personal info), but I think that's probably the source of the confusion. Perhaps these seemingly contradictory policies need to be reconciled, or at least better articulated so the reason for the different approach is made clear. I think it's likely that they were just written differently and no one really noticed, probably because it hasn't been an issue for discussion until now.

And as to no one asking what the community thinks about the CU/OS electoral process I suppose that's true, but if people have problems with ArbCom pre-vetting candidates then probably the issue should be raised in a more formal fashion (i.e. listed as a centralized discussion so many parties can offer input). Even if no one has asked, I don't think there's anything from preventing a conversation from happening (so far as I know nobody has really complained much in the past, though I could be wrong about that). If I had to guess I would say a majority of users who would bother to comment would probably be fine with the current process, but it's still perfectly legitimate to discuss it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is indeed contradictory or unclear, and we could ask clarifications to the WMF. But it's completely true that arbitrators are not vetted themselves and this creates a loop in the policy as well as being unfair. There's also a high risk that ArbCom isn't impartial in vetting, since they are very much influenced by personal relations. Personally I'd like an independent committee which makes a minimal vetting of all users applying for CU/OS including arbs, on any project. Projects should also have the liberty to have ArbComs whose arbitrators are not given cu/os access. Cenarium (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree with you and I think the issues you bring up are worth discussing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) What our beloved leader MZMcBride fails to mention during his unconditional criticism of absolutely everything the Committee does is that, as of barely more than a year ago, checkusers and oversighters were not vetted by ArbCom: they were simply named by fiat. Nobody was declined the opportunity to run because candidacies were simply not entertained at all and holders of those bits were just taken from the ranks of those the arbitrators were reasonably familiar with.

Of course, some people would much rather emphasize how evil we are for daring to perform due diligence before the community is consulted and hope they wave their hands fast enough that bystanders don't notice that the status quo was that the community was not solicited for candidates or consulted at all in their selection. — Coren ^(talk) 17:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The vetting is not necessary, the community does that, by voting. Aiken ♫ 17:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prior progress shall not prevent future progress. Cenarium (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cenarium's point. While Coren is right to mention the improvement on past practices in the form of having CU/OS elections, that's not to say that there isn't a better way to run those elections going forward. I know there are WMF policies at issue here, but surely Coren and other Arbs can see that the concerns mentioned by Cenarium in the 17:22 time stamped comment above have at least some validity? Personalizing this issue (while adding a heavy dollop of snark, e.g. "beloved leader") as being little more than MZMcBride with a vendetta isn't probably the best way to go (regardless of that user's own snark at the top of the thread). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that you're unlikely to find support for the idea that removing the step of qualification of candidates by ArbCom is progress within the committee or from the Foundation. In fact, the election itself does not have unanimous support from the committee — borne out of a reasonable concern that this politicizes a job that shouldn't be political or driven by "how many friends" a potential checkuser or oversighter has. Now, personally, I'm of the opinion that given the implicit trust the community needs to have towards holders of those bits, giving the community the opportunity to examine and discuss potential holders benefit more than the (unarguable) politics and drama around an elected position hinders.

In the end, that holders of advanced permissions demonstrably have the trust of the community is a net benefit. — Coren ^(talk) 19:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are arbcom members chosen again? -Atmoz (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't have members who oppose anything coming from ArbCom (whether good or bad), then we should create an entity that does just that. Opposition for opposition sake is always a net positive. Sole Soul (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that part of the issue is differing perspectives on the purpose of granting checkuser and oversight permissions. The "agenda" of the Arbitration Committee is to ensure that a proven need is filled by the best qualified candidates. It's somewhat difficult for the community as a whole to assess what that need really is, because it would be counterproductive to publicly identify gaps in service. For the Arbitration Committee, it isn't about "user rights" or some "privilege" to see private information; what Arbcom strives for is to ensure that there are the personnel willing and available to address the requests in a timely and competent manner, dealing with those who make requests courteously, particularly when the request will be denied. When it comes to oversight permissions, once one has seen a bunch of phone numbers or truly abusive usernames, or suppressed a pile of highly revealing information that's covered by COPPA, it is just so much noise. The expectations on this project are much higher than on others; while it may not be a big deal if someone's private information is available for a couple of days on a project that gets a few thousand hits a week, it's a major issue on this project, which is updated live by Google and is constantly being copied and duplicated on other sites, with thousands of hits a minute. A similar issue arises with Checkuser: this project has a higher rate of vandalism, disruption and content-affecting sockpuppetry than all of the other WMF projects combined; at the same time, the SUL process has made it simpler for problem accounts to be created on a smaller wiki with the express purpose of bringing its disruption here. Thus, ability to work with as part of a larger team, and familiarity with other projects, are becoming an increasingly more important skills for checkusers. In other words, Arbcom is moving toward a more professional, service-oriented practice, and taking steps to improve service and address complaints about it (via AUSC); yet a portion of the community continues to view these permissions as trinkets associated with power, riddled with abuse and misuse. There's a balancing act between the perception of power (which seems to be where at least a portion of the community is focused) and the reality of responsibility (which is where Arbcom is focused). I would be interested to see what kind of a process the community would come up with that ensures that the focus remains on the job that needs to be done and doesn't get caught in the dysfunctional patterns that are endemic to several areas of the project now. Risker (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll have a go:

A "mini ACPD" panel of independent ombudsmen (perhaps five) to oversee permissions, explicitly drawn from Wikipedia's "factions", to include at least:

1. One non-admin;
2. One person who has written at least one bot currently in use on the project;
3. One person who has successfully taken an article through FAC;
4. One current checkuser, oversighter, or arbitrator.

People wanting to apply for any advanced permissions (including Arbcom) would have to apply to this panel, and would need to be approved by a majority. (Not unanimously, otherwise it becomes a potential score-settling mechanism.) There would be no appeal process for anyone rejected by the panel, but anyone would be able to initiate a binding recall process at any time, with the recall process conducted in camera if sensitive personal data is involved.

You (plural) seem to have got into a mode of thinking in which anyone criticizing Arbcom is by definition a troll or looking to advance their own interests somehow. This isn't the case; many people have genuine serious concerns about the way Arbcom are repeatedly redefining their remit to become the Wikipedia Provisional Government. There may well be good grounds for Wikipedia having a central coordinating council to fill the void Jimbo left behind him, but that is not what those voting in the elections were electing you to be. You have an intentionally narrowly defined remit of "impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes that neither communal discussion, administrators, nor mediation have been able to resolve" – "taking steps to improve service and address complaints about it" shouldn't come into it unless it relates to matters within that remit – iridescent 19:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that proposal isn't insane, but there are two problems with it, one of which is a philosophical one: it makes a process that is already political even more political (because, obviously, you then need to pick the people for that panel).

The other problem is a deadly one: the proposal presumes that not only there are "factions" on Wikipedia, but that this is both desirable and to be encouraged by providing yet another mechanism around which "party lines" will coalesce. This is so detrimental to the proper working of a collaborative endeavor that I could not possibly do anything but oppose it vigorously. — Coren ^(talk) 19:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh, and no, I don't think there is anyone on the committee that thinks that anyone who criticizes ArbCom or its decisions (however often and vigorously) is a troll; that does not mean that there are no editors criticizing ArbCom for the sake of creating drama). — Coren ^(talk) 19:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need to point out that what you have essentially described is the process by which Arbcom used to appoint checkusers and oversighters, and indeed you've actually described the group as precisely what Arbcom is (with the exception of our not having any non-admmin members). Now, in reality, I wouldn't mind so much returning to that system, but you haven't identified how we'd develop that group. Why exactly would we appoint a group with the sole purpose of appointing checkusers and oversighters? Once again, you're playing into the idea that there is great power involved, instead of straightforward responsibility. Risker (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are factions (or "cliques", if you prefer) on Wikipedia, as there are in any group of people this size. Pretending there aren't won't change that; we have ≈10,000 users active at any given time, and they (shock!) have different interests. At the moment, all Wikipedia "authority positions" are drawn from and elected by the minuscule sub-group of "people who have an interest in policy-wonkery". (Was it 3% or 4% of active users who voted in the last round of Arbcom elections?) Processes which draw people from the other active areas into policy-making would at least be a step towards ending the disconnect between the decision-making core and the people who are actually working on the vandal-fighting, copy-editing and content-creating coalfaces. – iridescent 19:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that "disconnect" exists in the first place. There are editors with blinders, but they are a minuscule minority. The reality of it is, most of Wikipedia works quite well with nary a clique or faction to be seen; and there is no vast war between "elite" and "rank and file" as is often claimed by some. Anything that encourages that mentality is to be avoided at all costs. Who was it again that said "The fighting [in academia] is so vicious because the stakes are so low"? That sadly tends to apply here as well. — Coren ^(talk) 21:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was Columbia University professor Wallace Stanley Sayre (like many others, I've heard it attributed to Henry Kissinger, but no). – Athaenara ✉ 07:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I'd rather propose a committee based at meta to be independent of local politics, interpersonal relationships and disputes. It could be composed of stewards and wmf-appointed personnel. Any CU/OS access request would require their prior vetting, including candidatures to posts implying this access like enwiki arbcom. Cenarium (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with that as an alternative. A process should either represent a broad swathe of Wikipedia as per my suggestion, or none (as per yours). Too many well-intentioned problematic ideas (remember this?) arise because Wikipedia policy-making is biased towards the drama-board regulars. – iridescent 19:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's open up your Easter egg there, Iridescent: "Too many well-intentioned problematic ideas (remember Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development|this)?" Am I missing something? You just suggested a "mini-ACPD" to carry out checkuser/oversight appointments. Contrary to what you may think, the Arbitration Committee *does* represent a broad swathe of Wikipedians: featured content writers, members of wikiprojects, bot operators, editors from four continents, young(ish) editors, older editors, men and women, process wonks, people with mediation experience. We don't, however, limit our thinking by whatever label people want to put on us. About the only way we're disproportionate from the editorship is that all of us are administrators, but there is yet to have been a non-admin arbitrator selected by the community. Risker (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the other proposal ? Cenarium (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, re Risker) Chalk and cheese. Despite how some people try to rewrite history after the fact, I never had a problem with ACPD as a concept. Wikipedia needs more bureaucracy; far too much policy is made on-the-fly, and without someone in a position to step in and take charge, ad hoc decision making will one day lead en-wiki into the same kind of mess that's currently ripping Commons apart. My issue with ACPD wasn't "we hate committees", it was clearly spelled out; while we need a governance structure, presenting a bunch of names (including some of Wikipedia's most "colorful" characters) and issuing what was in effect a "these are your new bosses" announcement poisoned the well from the start, creating an Esperanza Mk II that was never going to have any credibility and thus postponing yet further the day when Wikipedia gets a workable internal governance structure. My suggestion above would be far more accountable, as the panel would be subject to recall; ACPD as proposed would have created a self-appointing and unremovable (remember this?) elite. – iridescent 23:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• @ Risker: "Contrary to what you may think, the Arbitration Committee *does* represent a broad swathe of Wikipedians". say that to people who believe in the separation of powers. Sole Soul (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not a government which raises taxes, makes war and peace, and enforces the rule of law. It might be illuminating to write out a list of what "powers" there actually are to separate. Oversight and Checkuser, the former especially, convey only the "power" to fill one's email inbox each and every day with endless requests to fulfil what is a vitally-necessary but overall soul-destroying task. Please get out of the habit of thinking that these permissions are any sort of privilege. Happy‑melon 03:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Even serving as an elected official is not supposed to be a privilege, and can be very daunting task. The principle of checks and balances can be applied to non-governmental entities. Sole Soul (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  relevant Sole Soul (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That is an argument for Jimbo, not against the committee. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd argue that the generous salaries, chauffered cars, official residences, and so forth which accompany elected positions in true governments, very much qualify as "privileges". You are right to agree that wikipedia governance is very different to these positions of true power. I fully agree that checks and balances are an essential where 'power' exists but, firstly, that is not the same as separation of powers (our horribly US-centric article to the contrary notwithstanding), and secondly, the principle is entirely academic unless it can be shown that there are actually "powers" here that need to be separated. We have perfectly acceptable checks and balances on activities such as emergency desysopping, admin blocking, and page deletion, without the need for a true separation of powers. The "power" being discussed is the authority to veto candidates for CU/OS access. To the extent that that really represents any "power" at all, switching from a joint ArbCom-Community process, to a pure Community one, is not separating any power at all; it's just moving it around from one Community-driven process to another. Happy‑melon 15:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To verify: Lankiveil and Someguy1221 are confirmed to be candidates for the current election cycle. All vetted candidates are now listed on the election page, and no further candidates will be added. On behalf of the Arbitration Commmittee, I wish to thank all of the editors who submitted applications, and those who expressed interest otherwise. Risker (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept our apologies, everyone. Due to the short delay between the final list of candidates being available and the planned opening of the vote, any small thing that could have gone wrong would delay it — and it has. The poll should be created shortly, and the end date will be pushed forward accordingly to keep fourteen full days of voting.

Lesson learned for the future: have a couple of days available between the end of nominations to run and the start of voting. — Coren ^(talk) 14:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lesson learned: open, public voting, like it is done for everything else on Wikipedia, would be the way to go next time. Aiken ♫ 14:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. In fact, I'm not sure where you see open, public voting anywhere on Wikipedia. There are discussions, certainly, and some people confuse those with votes, but the only real election prior to ArbCom moving some of its selections to votes was the ArbCom elections themselves. — Coren ^(talk) 15:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is you who is confusing discussions with votes. RFA, for example, would never see an admin promoted below 75% of the vote. As I said, open and on the wiki is the way we should be doing things, votes, discussion or whatever you want to call it. Aiken ♫ 15:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, RFA is not a vote, it is a discussion which either achieves a consensus that a given editor should be promoted or does not achieve such a consensus. In practice RFA candidates generally need at least 70% support (if not more) to pass so there is a strong electoral/bean counting element to it, but the very fact that we have bureaucrats who gauge consensus in an RFA when necessary shows that we are not actually "voting" in the traditional sense (in most elections, those overseeing elections cannot throw out votes simply because they think someone was not voting in good faith or because they provided a poor rationale—crats can do just that). ArbCom elections are indeed set up in a more traditional manner (the votes of everyone eligible count and are totaled up without comment), and that vote is no longer a public one. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, it is a vote, with a bit of leeway allowed. The "comments" in the "discussion" are numbered, they are tallied up, and RFA closes that ignore the 75% rule are rare and usually controversial. What we're having now is a discussion. RFA is a vote, with the ability to discuss the votes. Aiken ♫ 18:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the view I express is probably what Coren had in mind and I was just trying to reconcile your point with his—if you want to think of RFA as a vote then go ahead and do so, but right there on the main RFA page it says "This discussion process is not a vote..." Even if you think that's nonsense, surely you can acknowledge that RFA as a process is different from ArbCom elections as they were run last time, and that the latter is pretty clearly a (relatively) straightforward vote while the former is not. Anyway this is a side topic so that's all I have to say about it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Could we also have more time between start of questions and start of voting next time? I notice that less than one day was assigned for nominees to fully respond to the community's questions before voting began. That reminds me a bit of those popularity RFAs with 20 support votes before the page is even transcluded. I can think of no other election where voting begins at the same time as the responses to the questions. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Did I mention I live in Alaska? When I logged off last night, there were no questions posted yet. It's Sunday morning, I just got up an hour ago, and if polling had started on time I wouldn't have been able to answer any of them beforehand. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think (I may be wrong, as is often the case...) that the questions necessarily stop being able to be presented when polling starts - it isn't indicated when it stops. I would think that some of the first glut/trickle of voters would not have paid too close attention to the Q&A aspect since they had already decided upon their choices based on who the candidate was. Within the fortnight permitted for casting of votes there will be opportunity to revisit ones choices (all or nothing, if it is like the last SecurePoll I participated in) upon review of any late questions and their responses. One aspect of a short period between the commencement of questions and the commencement of voting is that candidates do not have the opportunity to polish up answers before voting starts on their responses - and all the candidates are aware that any answer (unless a really, really bad one) is better than no answer - and thus you get a real flavour of the candidates personae. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for providing an update and explanation. Could you indicate more precisely when voting will start? The deadline should be an explicit time, rather than a perpetual "some time soon". AGK 18:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As soon as possible. Most likely tomorrow morning when everyone is back to work. We will extend the election timeline as necessary to makeup for the missed time. All in all this is probably a good thing as it gives a few more days for questions before voting. KnightLago (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Specifically, the problem is that the SecurePoll extension still requires intervention from one of the few Wikimedia system administrators to set up initially (it can be run and administered from the Wiki, but needs to be created on the server). By simple poor timing, none of the sysadmins who knew how to set up the polls were reachable over the weekend, and they could not be asked before the final list of candidates was known.

  Since the week is beginning, I expect that one of them will be available to do so shortly but, of course, we can't say exactly when that will happen. — Coren ^(talk) 11:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and comments still welcome[edit]

To clarify, as there appears to be a bit of confusion: The question/comment period will continue throughout the voting period. Candidates should be prepared for this, and editors encouraged to pose any questions or make specific comments. Candidates who may be unavailable for an extended (more than 24 hour) period through the election are encouraged to note that as an addendum to their candidate statement. Risker (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sorry to be critical, but this delay has became insupportable. I implore those arbitrators involved in co-ordinating this election to have the situation remedied, or to at least provide some kind of update to those who were asked to participate in an election that they now find does not yet exist. AGK 22:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We are waiting for the developers. Since the delay has been so long we are going to give everyone a 24 hour warning before the voting starts. Then the full two weeks as promised. KnightLago (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The current word from the developers is the 14th. I will make an announcement when things firm up. KnightLago (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Things are now quite firm. The poll is configured and will open on the 14th (at 00:00 UTC). — Coren ^(talk) 14:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting this here, to (a) ensure that candidates are aware of this change, which will occur during the election period and (b) more broadly inform editors and administrators of this upcoming change.

Beginning 15 May 2010, the English Wikipedia Oversight mailing list will be migrating to the OTRS mail management system hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. The primary purpose of this move is to better track requests as they come in, and to ensure timely and consistent responses. This move comes after the German and French oversight lists moved to OTRS in the past year; both have found that it has assisted them in better responding to requests. Over the next week or so, oversighters who have not used OTRS before will be learning the fine points of that system, but the Oversight team will endeavour to maintain adequate responses to the system. The team has also prepared an introductory manual to assist with the transition, which discusses use of both the OTRS system and the Oversight tools.

The major effect on non-Oversighters will be the change in email address to which requests should be sent. When that change is made, we will widely publish the new email address for everyone's information, and we will encourage regular correspondents, particularly recent change patrollers and new page patrollers, to update their contact lists. The current Oversight-L mailing list will remain accessible for approximately two weeks after the changeover; after that, it will become a closed list where oversighters will discuss complex cases or review best practices.

For the Arbitration Committee and the Oversight team,
Risker (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Centralised discussion of this announcement is at this link