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 FT2 (talk | contribs) at 00:24, 29 September 2008 (→Huh: tweak). 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]
I also share similar feelings. They mentioned they are looking for 4 to 5 in above section and now we see this "shortlist" composed of 4 people. Coincidence? OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:52, 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]
  • Here's what happened. We knew a number of weeks ago that we wanted to create 4-5 new checkusers. We put together a list of candidates that seemed like they'd be good choices; I put each through a short vetting process, which you can see at User:Jpgordon/Checkuser questionnaire. Then someone pointed out to me that the committee had earlier discussed (and more or less committed to) a more open process of checkuser selection. The "short list" language was entirely mine, and I apologize for the confusion; essentially, what we've just seen is a dry run for next time there's a call for new checkusers. The process in the future will be clearer; we'll call for candidates (and of course recycle the ones we've already received), we'll do background vetting in private, and then we'll present possibly a longer list -- a real shortlist -- to the community for confidential commentary. There's some disagreement within the Committee as to whether we should have put out eight or nine names this time; the voice of expedience prevailed (me, this time), but we might want some more input in that regard. Should we put up eight qualified names knowing there are only four slots, and knowing that it's not a vote or a popularity contest? Or should we put forth the ones we've decided we like best, and only put up more names if we receive damning information from the community on one or more of the prospects? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, I think this was for the best. There was way less drama then what could have been expected by a larger list, of potentially or obviously undesirable candidates. Synergy 05:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, wait. If I understand your sequence of events right, you (a) had a list, then (b) checked them out, (c) called for candidates? That wasn't transparency, that was transparency pantomime! Why go through the motions at all? — Coren (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser appointments is one of those permanent background issues. The current round has been undergoing discussion at various stages since February or so. The longlist was a combination of self-nominees from August, names that the Committee had in consideration itself and names that had been recommended to us from various people. --bainer (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jpgordon and Bainer have described different aspects of it pretty well. Checkuser is one of the tasks that as a committee, we see as very serious. A huge amount of care goes into it, and process changes are made with caution to prevent undermining its integrity. Historically, the committee has had a good sense who might be good hands for custodianship of this privacy breaching function, and following discussion, when a checkuser appointment was truly needed, that has been how the decision was made.

    Providing an opportunity to express an interest is one way to improve the process. Of course we already had our own shortlist, and as we do our work carefully, that shortlist was a strong one, and contained several very good candidates. The inquiry for interest in August added a number of other names, some known, some not, and some also very strong. To prevent manipulation and influencing, we asked those interested to submit their name and nothing more, by email only, and we asked the community not to discuss these. Without drama, it achieved its intended goal.

    Those we sought information on included a mix of three from our initial shortlist, one from the communal inquiry. This is quite a vindication of our prior process, in that even after adding the new expressions of interest and considerable investigation on a completely equal basis, the four users we felt most likely to be best appointees still included three from the original names we had thought of. At least four other candidates from our initial list (most of whom also self-nominated) would still rate very highly even after considering all new names received, as would some three or four self-submitted names. In other words, the opening for self-nomination resulted in emails which included a number of good admins, but of those who we felt credible for checkuser after our own checks, over 2/3 (and 3 of the most likely 4) were in fact already known via internal discussion and private individual inquiries under the previous process.

    There was disagreement whether to seek input on a smaller number or a slightly larger number. Good reasons exist for both. A compromise was reached to seek agreement on a smaller number of the most likely candidates, with the understanding that this did not preclude a second round or further appointments in a month if needed. Our intent was to identify the best for the role whether known to us or not. As Jpgordon says, "the voice of expedience" prevailed; we put up the first four only, mainly to see what caliber of input we would obtain, and because we wanted to go cautiously. As Bainer says checkuser is under consideration in the background several times a year, and as Jpgordon says, this has been a first trial of this approach. His comment contains a lot of the detail, worth re-reading. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community Input

I don't wish to send any e-mails out, so let me begin with an apology for ignoring that particular venue. I know that it was, in all probability (or just possibly, since I haven't seen it stated), intended that there not be a full discussion on the candidates themselves so I will limit my statement. Let me just say, that this short list includes what I believe to be fine candidates for checkuser. I would also like to say that I'm glad that arb com has decided to make a small portion of this process transparent. Synergy 04:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Decided to make a small portion of this process transparent". Did I read it correctly that it says a small portion? When will the "big portion" of transparency come? Does that mean it'll never be a transparent process? OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the bainers comments above. Synergy 18:18, 27 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=241661384"