Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/August 2008 appointments

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 SQL (talk | contribs) at 08:02, 26 September 2008 (→Huh: re wily). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortlist location

Where will this shortlist appear? Here? Could you note that so we know to watchlist this page? Thanks.--chaser (away) - talk 22:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine so, yes. This seems like a sensible place to put it. --Deskana (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page location

This page sort of seems to be 'floating' in the projectspace. Can it be moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser appointments August 2008 or something, please? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also ought to move the older announcements from June/July, I think they have the same issue. MBisanz talk 02:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this isn't related to the Arbitration Committee (other than that we dole it out); if anything, it'd go somewhere like CheckUser/Appointments/August 2008, but that'd be yucky.
James F. (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number of CheckUser

Does ArbCom looking for a specific number of CheckUser? Or no upper/lower limit? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Why does the notice list criteria that does not appear on the WP:Checkuser page or the subpage Wikipedia:CheckUser/Appointments? --167.181.12.95 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only criterion not listed at the Wikimedia (meta) page is that the applicant must be an active administrator on English Wikipedia. The other criteria (age 18+, an adult in the place of residence, and willing to identify to the Foundation) are overarching requirements that apply to all projects. Is there really a concern here? Risker (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any sign?

Any sign of this short list then? Majorly talk 01:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck sorting, I used to have to shortlist people for a living and it's soul-destroying... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! At least one member of the community who seems to believe we have souls left to destroy! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you say!! This is an outrage! We must hunt down these free-minded souls and assimilate them into The Cabal™ before it is too late. What are you standing around here for??! MOVE!!!!! J.delanoygabsadds 06:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did used to get paid for shortlisting people you know. Would you like me to have a word with Jimbo? Money is a good substitute for a soul... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've indicated (on the mailing list) my 3-4 that I would be interested in, but nobody else seems to want to bite yet. I suppose I could get a headstart and start soliciting submissions right now, but that would give away my endorsements wouldn't it? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any sign...?

In the meantime, it so happens that having a high profile --> political involvement seems to be held in high regard, although anyone who deliberately starts going for publicity stunts isn't going to go down very well with me. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really would think a statement along the lines of "we like active vocal users" does not need the qualifier "do not set the Wiki on fire to show how vocal you are". heh. MBisanz talk 09:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh

Maybe "Four candidates for four or five positions? What feedback are you really looking for?" is the question pair to ask. WilyD 00:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is more in the nature of a final check on the conclusions we reached in discussion. We aren't mentioning further users in excess of the number that might reasonably be needed, no matter how good and credible they may be. (And we have some very good other candidates, it should be said.) If we need to consider others, at that time we will.
If we decide to appoint additional checkusers in the months ahead, then we have that knowledge, and we may solicit input at that time on the user/s we consider most likely, as a final check then, too. The aim of this is simply a final check additional to all previous inquiries, whether anything might be raised which is important, and we hadn't known of. For all four named users, out of respect and due diligence (given the size of the community) we wish to check "in case".
So the feedback sought is basically -- is there any good reason known by the community, why any of these may not be viable? If so we would like to be aware. If there is mostly silence... or insightful reasons why they would work out okay... or the only issues raised are matters we had already known of and considered, or analyses that roughly match our own... then that is reassuring that we aren't missing anything important -- and that is what we want to finally check.
FT2 (Talk | email) 01:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically, it's a "Speak now, or forever hold your peace" type of thing? J.delanoygabsadds 06:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Succinctly put. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We will seriously consider all of the input that we get. But it is true that we would not have put anyone on the shortlist that we would not be comfortable in appointing. --bainer (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All four of them are male :( :( What a pity. While all four are excellent choices - all of them - well ..... y'know :/ - Alison ❤ 05:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone thought in terms of gender. It never came up, and probably rightly so. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, in this case, one leading candidate informed us that she would be too busy with school this year to be able to spend the time with regular Wikipedia work, much less checkuser. Possibly an advantage to our slow process here -- if we'd put the candidates up before the start of the school year, she might not have known how busy she'd be! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular objection to the format or anything, it's just not what we I was lead to believe would be the case. Obviously, a wider view of the candidates is a plus, since the ArbCom can't be expected to investigate them to infinite depth. Just not the way I'd use the word shortlist, is all. WilyD 11:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the end, consensus was that for a first time, some arbitrators want to see how this works in practice and if it does produce as hoped. That said, there's a difference with appointing a larger number - if there were some unexpected genuine matter that came up, we might appoint 3 or even 2, and then consider further, ask for input on others, see how it looks in a few weeks's time, etc. (Ie, there's room in case of serious issues, that might not exist if just 1 or 2 appointments were intended.)
As a proponent of a longer shortlist, I hope that events prove this is helpful and that they support a repeat, possibly with more names, when future appointments are to be considered. That's my own personal view however. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think WilyD is just saying the term "shortlist" traditionally (to him, and to me, at least) means you narrow down a list of candidates, which will then be looked at in more detail and ultimately narrowed down some more before a final choice is made. I don't think he's commenting on whether 4 positions is a large or small number, just that this is more like a proposed final decision, rather than a shortlist. A shortlist would have been more like "here are 8 to 10 candidates we're considering, please provide feedback and we will narrow it down to 4 or 5". I sort of thought that was how it was going to work too, but I'm not sure where I got that idea, and I have no real objection to doing it this way. Just a terminology quibble, I think. He will hopefully correct me if I'm wrong. --barneca (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err, that's correct, yes. Typically I expect a "shortlist" to have 2-4X the number of people to actually be appointed. Vetting candidates is somewhat different - it's not a big deal or anything, just a surprise. WilyD 14:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of what I was expecting too, Wily... It wasn't just you :) SQLQuery me! 08:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The list posted on the project page attached to this discussion seems to me more a final notification of who will be appointed (without that tone of finality, admittedly), as opposed to a shortlist. Better late than never, I suppose. Anthøny ✉ 15:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/August_2008_appointments&oldid=241082842"