Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2011 appointments

Scared Safe at night
Wow! If your intent for this page was to scare the living daylights out of Wikipedia contributors, you have succeeded. Have any of you got any idea how much like a KGB interrogation this stuff sounds? [redact revdel doubleplus ungood] Keep up the good work, comrades.[OS edit newspeak]

A couple of days ago I made some comments at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/March_2011_Update on the things that might drive away or attract new contributors. This page is an example of something that would make me pull up my doona to my eyes at night, nervously glancing at my PC in the corner lest it suddenly wake from standby to display the message: 'You have been de-Wickied. Report to the central committee at once for confession of your anti-Wiki activities and de-briefing.' >[revdel redact quadrupleplus ungood]make me sleep safely at night. Your activities make me feel safe from decadent influences.[OS edit doupleplus good]

I was particularly taken with an exchange about the personal acquaintances of one candidate for this black-ops group which ended with a suggestion that a searching question was satisfactorily answered because the questioner only wanted to see the 'truthfulness' of the answer! Sounds like the comrade already KNEW. BigWiki is watching you. [revdel redact ungood][OS userfile + addendum]

The exchange reminded me of reported proceedings in the Australian Commonwealth Parliament in 1955, when Labor leader Doc Evatt, after having sent a letter to Soviet foreign minister Molotov asking whether the USSR was spying on Australia, read out the reply in Parliament: Molotov denied espionage. Strangely enough this reply from Mother Russia evoked prolonged laughter in the House. [revdel redact doupleplus ungood + newspeak/history/1955]

Yours may be serious business, but you might want to consider putting a slightly more human face on it. We are all still human beings, right? Not just Wikinyms? The stiff, bureaucratic formality of the whole things is as scary as the shadowy powers you allude to. The almost standard use of acronyms everywhere makes the discussion almost impenetrable - except to you, of course. Is that the way you want it? When do the black-ops archives emerge from secrecy blackout? [revdel redact + useragentstring + addendum]I am heartily gladdened by your tireless work to protect the integrity of our consciences and souls.[OS edit quintupleplus good]

Do they let you guys carry guns? Sorry. Didn't mean that, comrades, honest. I'll just go change my identity, pack my bags and flee to somewhere no one knows about Wikipedia. Urr ... there doesn't seem to be anywhere on the planet that fits this description. [OS redact + userfile + useragentstring terminate xtrprej]

Congratulations, comrades. Keep up the good work.[OS edit tripleplus good]

Peter S Strempel Page &#124; Talk 02:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The merits of this community consultation
You (AC) have vetted all the candidates already. I don't think that one useful point has come up (so far) that you wouldn't have been able to find yourself. There is no way you can tell from the limited number of comments which candidates "The Community" prefers, to say nothing of the fact that what we have here is simply a group choosing its own overseers. But perhaps I'm simply confused. What was the intended purpose of this "community consultation"? NW ( Talk ) 04:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's turned out to be less "pointless" than one might have thought. First off, we did not vet the candidates to the same high level as we did prior to elections; that will be the final step. In addition, aside from the comments left on the page attached, we have received comments via email from quite a few users which will be very helpful. The community has indeed been active on this matter, just not in as visible a way as one might think. One could venture to guess all kinds of reasons for that, including not wanting to publicly "diss" otherwise fine volunteers who someone doesn't feel is particularly suited to this specific role. We *are* listening and reading every single comment either here on this page, or received via email. Risker (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Something about encouraging people to email concerns rather than just having them state their concerns clearly (or even argue by ballot) seems off to me. Can you imagine the outrage is Jimmy said "OK, we're scrapping the AC vote this year; anyone with concerns about these candidates can email me or the current Committee :) Furthermore, and I think this is a bigger issue, this system makes it very difficult for people to identify which editors they trust the most to review the functionaries. For example, I really think Keegan should definitely be one of the people appointed. It's not that I don't trust, say, Ucucha (I do, I promise!), it's just that given the choice between the two, I would pick Keegan because I know and trust him much more. But I really don't see any good way for people to state that in any organized way without this turning into a vote, which is apparently not what is wanted. NW ( Talk ) 06:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Last year, the committee voted to move to a community consultation method for appointing functionaries because the SecurePoll method was proving to be ineffective in obtaining actionable feedback as to why candidates were not receiving a sufficient level of support for appointment. During our review of the Audit Subcommittee, we came to the conclusion that the appointment method, having been used successfully in the last CU/OS appointment round, would be the most effective way to gather meaningful feedback in an organized fashion.
 * I'm not sure why you feel this method makes it difficult for you to state which candidates you feel are better qualified; you can do so either in the "Community comments" section or by emailing the committee privately. Some have emailed about a single candidates, and some have provided their thoughts on all six. If you are concerned that your comments would amount to a simple vote, you should include a detailed rationale for each candidate. Thus far, numerous comments have been received both onwiki and by email that will assist us in making our decision, and I encourage you to make your thoughts about the candidates known to the committee in the manner suggested. – xeno talk  15:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When was the move from a vote to a "community consultation" made? —Emufarmers(T/C) 04:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * About two months ago. NW ( Talk ) 06:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * On a related note to the above, will the candidates be given a summary of the positive and negative comments submitted against them? I for one would like to know if there is anything I'm doing well or doing badly in my daily contributions to Wikipedia. AGK  [&bull; ] 21:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Should they request it, candidates will be provided with a broad overview that does not violate the confidence of those submitting comments privately. – xeno talk  13:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Spreading the word
Has this been advertised anywhere? I only saw it because someone mentioned it on IRC. —Emufarmers(T/C) 04:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * AN, ANI, Arbitration Committee Noticeboard, WP:Checkuser talk, WP:Oversight talk, WP:AUSC talk, Village pump, and I think a few other places. The mediawiki notice has been pretty full so I don't think we have tried to put it there. Risker (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * CENT as well. – xeno talk  05:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And signpost, which goes out on many channels like foundation-l and twitter. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What about a watchlist notice? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus was not reached: MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. – xeno talk  15:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That's odd, especially as I see I am being informed on my watchlist that the FileMover permission (aka Yet Another Right) is now available. Still, I think the level of promotion has thus far been adequate; as this is not an actual election, participation is IMO really only expected where there is something bad or good to say of a candidate. AGK  [&bull; ] 21:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand the motivation to keep the watchlist-notices fairly relevant to a wide range of editors. If low-value notices keep getting posted there, more and more editors will hide the notice via css and perhaps miss more important information later on down the road. – xeno talk  13:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)