Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight appointments

Is this the right type of election?
The proposed method is approval voting. In practical terms, this means "first n past the post", in this proposal, based on a ratio of three candidates to each appointment. Several questions arise.


 * 1) Is this wasteful of good candidates? Out of a pool of three, only one will be appointed.
 * 2) Should the ratio instead be, say, two candidates to each vacancy?
 * 3) Should we consider an altogether different system? for example, would a "support/oppose" system (similar to that used at RfA) be better? Under this system, any candidate with a very clear consensus for promotion – for instance c. 85% – would be promoted.
 * 4) Is it better to have formal approval voting elections every three or four months or to run a series of "support/oppose" elections for individual candidates as vacancies arise?

Your thoughts? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 18:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If any candidate receives clear community support, and the committee has already vetted them, why not promote them? With that, this process needs to steer as far away from RfA as possible. Requests for CU and/or OV should not be a popularity contest, nor should it create any amount of drama. Tiptoety  talk 18:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. It was the desire to minimise drama that led to the voting proposal here. What would you regard as an indication of clear community support? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 18:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we can know that there is community support by including a minimum number in the approval voting process. I think 150 is a good gauge? We discussed this too late to put it in the Committee's final draft FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, I was just about to say something similar. I think we it comes down to it, the committee has enough common sense to say, "It is clear that consensus favors promoting" and visa versa. Tiptoety  talk 18:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we want to have something clearly spelled out to make it clear who has the Community support so the Committee is not doing the deciding. Also, the users voting might alter their votes if they know the minimum number required to pass the Community part of the process. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I liked the way the board elections were held. The vote itself was held off-wiki using software that did not reveal peoples votes or the results until the vote closed. To me, that reduces a ton of unnecessary drama. At the same time, there needs to be some room for discussion about the candidate and that is why I think a page (on-wiki) with a nomination statement (either from the candidate or ArbCom) along with space for questions from the community would be a good idea. Thoughts? Tiptoety  talk 20:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What if someone doesn't like any of the candidates? They just don't vote? The problem with approval voting is that we don't know the proportion of the community who are against a candidate. Imagine in one election the winner gets 240 votes, then in the next, the winner only gets 160. Were fewer people interested in voting, or did 80 people not vote in order to oppose all the candidates? Is a vote for a candidate a vote in support of that person, or a vote against the other 2? We can't really know. Mr.Z-man 21:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are problems with "support/oppose" voting, too. If multiple candidates are standing in the same election, a person may oppose one of them in order to support another one more strongly (see tactical voting).  I confess that one of my votes on the ArbCom election was motivated by this thought process; had I known that 10 candidates would be appointed, I would have supported the candidate in question.  I don't feel sorry for doing that, and I'm happy that both the candidate in question and the one I preferred ahead of him made it on to the Committee.  My point is that there will be problems with any system.  My sense is that FloNight has the right idea.  ArbCom can be flexible: they can say "We will take the top two candidates by approval, or the number of candidates who get 100+ supports, whichever is larger."  This would answer Tiptoety's concern.  Again, this can be gamed, but in any voting method we choose the lesser among evils. Crystal whacker (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I read further down this page that there may be a limited number of candidate positions for any one election. That makes no sense to me - checkuser positions are no more limited in theory than ArbCom positions, and ArbCom just got expanded by three members for no particular reason - but if that's the case, then my "either/or" proposition does not hold water. Crystal whacker (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In this case we know that about "n" positions will be appointed, and we know we have "m" candidates, each and all of whom the committee would be fine with (as they have been vetted). So the question is which candidates have the highest communal endorsement (for trust or otherwise) in the wider community. Approval voting is well designed for that purpose.

As a side view, it also kills off the poisonous problem of people opposing perfectly good candidates (a bit hit percentage-wise) merely to enhance one's own preferences. A user can choose to vote only for "n" candidates, but this way they cannot claim that the other candidates are actively unsuited or communally undesirable (the purpose of an oppose). If there is a genuine concern, or a genuine reason a user is not communally desirable, as opposed to simple tactical voting, then it needs to be put on the talk page and if others agree (in the course of 10 days) they will act accordingly and withdraw support as well. If the oppose is not actually a reflection on the candidate, then simply say nothing. FT2 (Talk 22:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But when we only officially take into consideration the opinions of the people who support the candidate, we have no idea how many people we're ignoring. It would be entirely possible for someone to "win" despite having the support of only a small fraction of the active community as everyone else can't do anything but comment. If their comments don't sway the support voters, they won't matter. You could have 10 times as many people complaining on the talk page with valid reasons as supporting, but the person could still succeed, and the supports don't have to be for good reasons. The system also doesn't take into consideration the possibility that none of the candidates might be satisfactory. Wouldn't it be better to have another election with different people than force the community to choose between the lesser of 3 evils? Mr.Z-man 00:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

One of my concerns is that with each election, the less preferred, but still community liked candidates will gain stigma for having "lost" elections making each subsequent election harder for that individual.--Tznkai (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Approval voting is a Really Bad Idea for this kind of election. This table should point out why: for the 2007 ArbCom election, out of 14 candidates with sufficient "approval", only 6 had sufficient consensus to be elected. I'm sure there's plenty of similar outcomes on RFA. What is being proposed here is essentially the same to having WP:AFD delete any article for which 20+ people vote "delete", and restricting all "keep" comments to the talk page (and yes, that is the proper metaphor, because when in doubt the default is to NOT delete an article, and to NOT give a user CU rights) .  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  21:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that the default IS to give checkuser to people whom arbcom think should have it, so the analogy doesn't quite work.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm sure that making it a popularity contest is a great idea.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  22:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If the purpose is to discover which candidates, out of a finite set, the community would most like to see elected, why wouldn't we use a preferential voting system like STV?? It's as simple to explain as saying "please write the candidates in your order of preference, favourite first", and not significantly more difficult to comprehend the counting process (although it is admittedly somewhat time-consuming to actually perform the count, it is a fairly transparent count when published). It allows editors to approve any number of candidates and, while not permitting explicit disapproval, makes not voting for someone at all a more overt and explicit indication of a lack of support than in an approval vote (as the votes for all candidates are presented together). Sounds good to me. Happy‑melon 22:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be better, but it still forces the community to choose someone. If all the candidates are unsatisfactory, it would be better to have a new election with different people than to force the community to choose. Mr.Z-man 22:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is that that's not really the question being asked. It's not like RFA where it doesn't matter how many successful candidates there are.  In RFA, if a whole tranche of applicants are unsuitable, we can reject them all and not worry that the slight blip in the resulting number of active admins will be too detrimental to the project.  But for CU/OS, the number of active users is important; it's tightly controlled to as closely as possible match the workload.  As such, when a CU/OS election is called, it's because X many new CUs or OSs are needed, so we do have to choose 'someone'.  If all the candidates are unsatisfactory, that indicates that the process failed a long time ago (when good candidates didn't stand for vetting), not that the election has failed.  Happy‑melon 12:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's have a hypothetical
First let's get one thing out of the way. There is no perfect election system. Only what will meet our needs while minimizing the specific problems we face. There may in fact not be a 'best' system among those. Only a least worst. and maybe not even that. :)

That said, I want to imagine something. Say we have editors Alice, Bob and Carol. Each of them has been selected by the AC to run as checkusers, but (crucially) each would face some significant community disapproval in that function. Pick any number of reasons this could be the case. They might have been to cavalier with someone's private information, they might have mucked up a SSP here and there, or they may have just stepped on too many toes. Regardless, our hypothetical editors all stand for election and one (or two) will be approved. How does the community tell the committee that they have failed in each choice when they have only the option of choosing among them? What sort of mechanism would exist for disqualifying a candidate should "talk page opposes" (my phrasing) present significant concerns?

I know that demanding this is a big jump (right now no election system exists). I also know that the AC is not likely to bumble into this hypothetical.

Thoughts? Protonk (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Err..
14 supporting, no objections, and no abstentions? That doesn't add up to 17--Tznkai (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Holiday period absences, I think, but it does read oddly, I agree :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 18:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not everyone voted. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Members of a body who have not voted are the ones "abstained" in traditional parlance, thus my confusion.--Tznkai (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In this case the more closely analogous phrase is "not present" - which is not the same as abstained, but reduces the total potential for votes. Avruch  T 00:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Variation of number of appointees
At this edit,, I indicated my broad agreement with the proposals, but also stated my objection to Arbcom varying the number of appointees during or after an election (as in point 8 of the "Election" section of the proposal). Roger Davies here, asked me to expand my comment. I object to such variation because an election in which the number of appointments is unknown to the electorate is wide open to allegations of Arbcom gaming (or worse) the results in order to get a favoured candidate in. Even a squeaky clean Arbcom enjoying the confidence of the great majority of users, would always be open to such allegations in any case where they varied the number of appointments. This proposal, along with the proposed Arbcom policy update, represents a very welcome and I believe very real and honest attempt by Arbcom to address recent issues which have undermined confidence. It would be unfortunate if in the process they were to adopt a policy or procedure so open to at best misunderstanding (and at worse to abuse). DuncanHill (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked you to comment here because this is bound to crop up again. Thanks for doing so.
 * First, the idea is to announce the number of vacancies up front. The very real problem arises with a tie. There are a couple of possible scenarios:
 * Two vacancies with the first three candidates all scoring the same number of votes. Who gets passed over?
 * Three vacancies. The first two candidates score very highly. The next four very poorly, with third and fourth place tying and fifth and sixth only one vote behind? What do you do here? (Probably only appoint the top two?)
 * However, in either scenario, Arbcom would certainly explain the rationale behind the decision. Does this help? Or can you suggest a better way forward? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 19:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Should we hold another whole additional election if mid-election we get one or more resignations from highly active people with CU or OS access? We were trying to fore see the problem of delays. I'm not sure we should get to rigid if the people are meeting the minimum vote threshold we set. Do you see my point? FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I do see your point Flo, and Roger's too. However, I do feel that say a run-off (even with the delay that would inevitably bring) would be preferable to a system open to such misunderstanding. Confidence is the key - an election for, say, 4 positions, which ends up with 6 winners is not one which will inspire community confidence. DuncanHill (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If we immediately hold another election, is that going to be seen in a better way? Plus, we really do need to be sensitive to over taxing the Community with elections and other administrative tasks. We are trying to reach a balance. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it would be seen in a much better way. "Over taxing the community with elections" or "having an election and then telling the community it was a different election than they thought it was". I know which I prefer. DuncanHill (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We've gotten feedback from others that we are making Wikipedia too heavy with bureaucracy. That is the objection for some people the new Review Board. Let's see what others say. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue on this one is, we might feel the need for "around 3-4 checkusers". For example last August we knew we needed at least 4, but we could have chosen as many as 6. Or, if the candidates turned up to have problems via communal feedback, as few as 3. So we enter an election knowing we want 3-4 (or 3 but willing to consider a 4th), and we might make the decision on the 4th place based on the results. If the top results are 150-145-137-133-104 we might opt for the 4th place. If they are 150-145-137-116 we might not. Consider it an election for n places with an option to maybe appoint 1 or 2 more when considering the results, a bit like this last Arbcom election in a way. FT2 (Talk 22:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, why not make clear beforehand that "this is an election for whatever number of posts that we decide after the election that we want", unlike the last arbcom election which was claimed to be for a certain number but turned out to be for a different number. At its simplest, it is a question of honesty - if you claim the election is for n posts, and appoint m (where m != n) it does appear less than honest. DuncanHill (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true. I had in mind that we might say "We are considering 3 places, perhaps 4" or "Between 2 - 4 checkusers will be appointed". Something like that, an indication. Not a completely different number that is a complete surprise though. Would that work? FT2 (Talk 22:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It still wouldn't be ideal, but it would be less bad (assuming the number of appointments did turn out to be within the range given beforehand). DuncanHill (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would expect not to go much outside any stated numbers anyway. Another example might be, 4 candidates, 1 position anticipated, but the voting comes in at 190-177-120-96, with strong support for the first two. We might think "okay, the 2nd user seems very trusted by the community, we were debating a 2nd position anyway for a while; we could probably do well to appoint them", rather than waiting for a further election some months away. FT2 (Talk 23:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"Urgently needed"
Most of the proposal looks pretty good. The only part that made me do a double take was this part: In the event appointments are very urgently needed and there are insufficient immediately available candidates, the community will be consulted as to its wishes.

Personally, I can't envision any situation in which there would be a lack of CheckUsers / Oversighters that would warrant an emergency-type situation. This clause just seems odd and I somewhat worry about possible future abuse of it (getting "consensus" on obscure subpages, for example). --MZMcBride (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, while this may be an issue for smaller wikis with only one or two CUs or OVs it is not an issue here. I have yet to see and doubt I ever will a situation that requires emergency promotion of CU or OV rights. Tiptoety  talk 19:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Largely I agree, but in the case every person with Checkuser of Oversight access quit, it would be nice to have a back up plan spelled out. Going to the Community for approval to do something quicker than using 2 week process seemed wise to us. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that is anywhere near reality though, I do not think all the CUs and OVs are going to quit at one time. Tiptoety  talk 19:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)It may be useful to reference Wikinews' experience when all its Checkusers were de-righted because under 25 people turned out for its arbcom elections. It had to hold new two week long elections with a turnout of 25+ before the rights were restored. Obviously if our Arbcom itself was incapacitated for the same reason, it couldn't appoint new CUs, but it can occur that all CUs are de-righted.  MBisanz  talk 19:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, I read this as "if we lack pre-vetted candidates, we might ask the community if they got names we could consider". This doesn't seem to be adding any loophole to the community vetting. Am I wrong? -- lucasbfr  talk 20:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In the event emergency checkuser appointments are deemed necessary, could the ArbCom (or indeed, in the exceptionally unlikely set of circumstances that results in a mass resignation/rights removal of all Arbitrators, The Foundation/Jimbo/Brion) not request assistance from the Stewards and worry about additional checkuser appointments in due course. In an emergency sort of situation, I believe we would be better served by users who are familiar with the tool and identified to the Foundation (I know there's the downside that they might not be fully up to speed with our policies here). An emergency situation could be related to numerous sockpuppet / open proxy attacks on the site in addition to some sort of mass CU resignation, so it seems like the wrong time to appoint new checkusers would be during a situation where experienced checkusers are needed. Nick (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we could get Checkusers from other projects or stewards to fill in. That would be what I think that the Community and the Committee would decide during the discussion that the Committee would start. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I get the feeling this language was put in as a CYA "just in case" the unlikely scenario happened. rootology ( C )( T ) 22:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Partly, but it has a more serious basis. There are not that many users who will be appropriate to appoint to checkusership. If 2 leave at a similar time, then the team might well notice the gap in person-power. Or if we start getting oversightable edits from a time zone with lower coverage then we might quickly want to appoint an extra couple of coversighters, who live in those specific time zones, to increase the responsiveness. So urgency can exist.


 * Now... for each place we need 3 vetted candidates. Take it that this is not easy. We may only have 3 candidates, and we need 3 more checkusers, 2 at a pinch. What to do? Wait until we find 3 - 6 more viable candidates, for a total of 6 - 9? Or instead, tell the community "We think the community badly needs at least 2, maybe 3 checkusers, and we only have these 3 candidates we're really happy with. What do you want us to do? Here are some options for a straw poll, or maybe there are options others will propose." We don't know what situations might arise, and therefore we can't be sure what would be the best solution in advance; "ask the community" seems the best general-purpose solution. FT2 (Talk 22:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Candidate to appointee ratio
I'll just swipe Roger's two questions to the community from above:


 * 1) Is this wasteful of good candidates? Out of a pool of three, only one will be appointed.
 * 2) Should the ratio instead be, say, two candidates to each vacancy?

This is an important point where community feedback is needed, so I'm splitting it off. Some points that have come up during discussions amongst committee members:
 * There's a limited pool of potential candidates for CheckUser in particular - active administrators with the necessary technical expertise, plus the willingness to expose themselves to some of the abuse that checkusers get.
 * If a maximum of one in three candidates that make it through Arbcom vetting are appointed, will that encourage or discourage qualified people to apply?
 * If we add a "minimum number of supports" criterion, should we also keep the requirement of three candidates for every open position?

The feedback thus far on this proposal has been very insightful. Risker (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I should add that I am one of those who originally insisted for the more-candidates-than-seats system; presenting 3 candidates to fill 3 seats isn't a real community choice at all. I agree that approval voting alleviates this somewhat.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with one in three. If there are three slots open, then the top three in voting should get it. If 5 are vetted by arbcom, then the top 3 voted upon by the commnunity should get it.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 20:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be wise to always supply more candidates than seats. The exact ratio could vary.  The Committee should not appoint a candidate who evidently has less support votes than typical, even if there is an open seat.  Those who are not appointed in one round can be recycled as candidates in subsequent rounds until they are either appointed or withdraw from the process. Jehochman Talk 20:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good points, Jehochman; there was pretty strong agreement that there should be more candidates than positions, but we weren't quite sure how the community would feel about set ratios, or whether establishing a minimum approval level might change the ratio. Risker (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the appearance of "wastefulness" seems to arise from an unstated assumption that the "losing" two thirds will never be appointed. But I see no reason why these won't ever stand in an other election.  In fact, if the arbcom were to game the system, all this would amount to is that a steadfast community would be able to veto two candidates. Not the greatest of wastes. ;-) — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also a good point, Sidhekin. The challenge is that, with a 3 candidates to 1 position ratio, that would mean 9 candidates for 3 positions, which is a lot of people to vet (for both the committee and the community), and is incidentally approximately 1% of the active administrative corps. Once vetted by the committee, though, unless something significant arises in the interim, a candidate should be able to stand in the next election without an issue. Risker (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * However, if elections occur infrequently, a candidate might lapse into inactivity in the meanwhile, and their services might forever be lost. It's best to judge whether a person is needed to help, and able to help, at any particular moment, without searching into the future possibilities. Crystal whacker (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"Vacancy"
My sole substantive issue with this proposal is the wording "vacancy", and I would like to know in more detail how this is to be considered. There is a danger that the resignation or retirement of a member of either the CheckUser or Oversight teams would lead to a vacancy that would automatically require an election. It is, of course, better that as few users have access to private and sensitive data as possible; it is important, therefore, that the proposal does not bind (or appear to bind) the Committee to holding elections where they would be unnecessary.

I should like to know, therefore, the criteria and process that is to be adopted to determine a need for new Checkusers or Oversighters, in particular


 * 1) what factors affect the judgment,
 * 2) who is to be consulted,
 * 3) how often such assessment shall be made, and
 * 4) if 3 is "as and when necessary", what shall prompt the assessment?

[[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 21:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Par 3. of "Candidacy and vetting" goes into more detail – "ArbCom will normally call an election (i) when there is consensus for further CheckUser and/or Oversight appointments ..." – though it doesn't spell out all the answers you seek. There are no particular plans (yet?) to regularly re-evaluate needs. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 21:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that. Perhaps there should be explicit (even if non-binding) plans for how the Committee intends to proceed?  Furthermore, consensus among whom?  Presumably the Committee?   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 21:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This may be one point where the Review Board/Audit Panel may be helpful; they can keep on top of statistical usage and may be able to recommend to the committee that more appointments should be made. I will work a bit on this tonight to see what I can come up with, and will post a link to this point. Risker (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 21:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing to consider is how the people who are doing the job feel about it. If they say they feel overloaded and burned out, then it's time to get someone new on the job. Crystal whacker (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I drew up the stats on Checkuser last spring (see WT:CHECK); our top checkusers were doing immense amounts of work. Broadly I'd trust the checkusers themselves to say if they need more hands. My own view is they should agree an informal guideline on "usual usage" and if they are constantly going over it then be aware and ask for help if it's excessive. (Although if they're enjoying it or "into it", then I wouldn't stop them; the aim is they have a guide what's usual.) I would let the checkusers set that guide themselves, to roughly correspond to a mid-way active relaxed checkuser. As Crystal says, "Trust the checkusers who are doing the work". One thing for sure, we don't want to operate in a way that encourages burn-out over self-pacing. FT2 (Talk 22:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the responses. I am eager to ensure that there is the right number of Checkusers -- neither too few nor too many.  As I spell out above, "too many" is problematic in itself (though more so for CheckUser than for Oversight, as urgency is a factor where Oversight is concerned).  I recognise that the current situation (no rules or guidelines whatsoever) is just as bad or worse in this respect than the current proposal.  Now does, however, seem a good moment to also examine what the procedures are for making these decisions, in order that the right ones be made.  (And yes, I very much hope that the answer to #1 above would include the teams currently doing the work.)   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 23:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Voter eligibility
As currently written, "Any unbanned editor who has made at least 150 mainspace edits by the first day of the calendar month before the election may vote." This would parallel the rules in place for the 2008 ArbCom election, where users needed 150 mainspace edits before 1 November 2008 for an election that took place in December 2008.

I do not think such a stringency is needed for ad hoc elections as opposed to annual elections. I think it would be sufficient to allow an editor with 150 edits on the day that the election is announced to the community, assuming that the election will take place shortly after it is announced. This would prevent what appears to be the motivating concern, namely, that an editor might try to gain 150 edits after an election is announced in order to vote for a candidate, where that voter would otherwise be ineligible. I see the countervailing viewpoint, namely, that maybe a voter should be experienced to a minimum threshold not only at the moment the election is announced, but should have "150 edits plus one month of experience" to combine edit count with months of experience. I recommend a more lenient policy, but since I see it both ways I'm also willing to support the criterion as it stands. Crystal whacker (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * support the criteria as it stands because we want to stop people from 'hearing' about the election (which could occur before its announcement) and responding, while still not impacting too many new users. Protonk (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Vetting procedure
Very quick question, but am I correct in my understanding that the vetting procedure has already begun for new CU's, with some people already selected and contacted to go through the process?  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is correct. In addition, there should be (or should have been) a public call for people to apply for vetting. Actually, the proposal says it better than I have: "ArbCom will periodically invite applications from the community for CheckUser and Oversight permissions, although any editor may apply for pre-vetting at any time." As FloNight has said elsewhere: "We wanted to get something in place for the next appointment which will be fairly soon". So yes, the process is in effect in motion and any editor wanting to be considered should apply. Roger Davies and Rlevse have been handling most of the admin stuff for this, so contact them. Of course, if this proposal runs into trouble, then this may have to be reconsidered, but that is what I understand is happening. Carcharoth (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Tidying discussion
Some of the straw poll comments are turning into threaded discussions. Would anyone object if those discussions were moved here, with links from the comments to the relevant section of this talk page? Carcharoth (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do. Tiptoety  talk 01:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny
Does this really differ that much from this, which I tried to push through about a year ago? I don't think it does much. But I was basically slapped in the face by Arbcom when I proposed it: we were told the whole thing was illegitimate; I had "sour grapes" according to David Gerard; it was "impossible" for the community to vote where there is an arbcom; FloNight did not believe that "CU access consensus discussion scales with a wiki as large as Wikipedia English"; and that the community apparently preferred ArbCom choosing people secretly. Mackensen, an Ombudsmen claims on the archive of the talk page that "The present system works just fine, barring sour grapes", a highly rude comment, and inaccurate also. Sam Korn claims that an RFA system would essentially be a popularity contest, yet he supports this poll.

So, what's changed in a year? No changes policy-wise as far as I know. This should have happened last time it was proposed, almost one year ago. Perhaps this is why 2008 arbcom was so poor (and all the ArbComs before it). Too many arbitrators hating the idea that their special little "gift" (as Mackensen, Wikimedia Ombudsman puts it) would be stolen from them. It's really pathetic - but on the other hand, thank you to the arbcom of 2009 who have finally done the right thing and listened to the community for once. It sure makes a change, and a good one at that.  Majorly  talk  00:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the difference was in perception (i.e. who presented it), though there are subtle differences in what was presented as well. A change presented by the group that has been charged with dealing with something can sometimes have more chance of gaining traction than something presented by a single person. No comment on the rest of what Majorly has said. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It was not just me, and the proposals are essentially the same, minus minor differences such as number of votes or whatever. They're both involving the community to an extent that they can voice their opinion on a candidate and have it listened to. This should not have taken a year to get going.  Majorly  talk  01:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There are many things that shouldn't have taken a year to get going. Which one next? Carcharoth (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ArbCom vetoed it though, saying it was a bad idea and would never work - it was ArbCom's gift, according to checkuser, Ombudsman and former arbitrator Mackensen. If ArbCom had bothered to listen to the Community (which I recall, were not completely opposed), this would have happened a lot sooner. Why the sudden change of heart?  Majorly  talk  01:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, it's happened now.  Majorly  talk  01:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Regime change? ;) - Mailer Diablo 05:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say the three substantive differences between the two proposals is the advance vetting by Arbcom (thus meeting the due diligence expectations of the WMF without the drama of rejecting an elected candidate who did not meet requirements), the voting method proposed (which is simpler and does not require assessment of consensus by a group that indicated it didn't feel that responsibility was within their purview), and the acknowledgement of the WMF having the right to refuse proposed candidates. I think Carcharoth may also have a good point. Two, actually, as I don't have any comment on the rest of what Majorly has said. Risker (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're looking at it too closely. The whole thing was proposed, with ideas for how it could work. The issue is ArbCom shot it down without even looking at the details. It could have been identical to this. The current version is not the original proposal either. The point is, it was vetoed by ArbCom, without even being given a chance - and of course ArbCom called it illegitimate, "sour grapes" and all sorts of incorrect things. I'd still like to know why the change of heart - why is ArbCom suddenly interested in what the community thinks?  Majorly  talk  01:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it doesn't matter why - it's what they should have always been doing, so no point in questioning :)  Majorly  talk  01:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The recent appointment of ten new arbitrators has completely changed the landscape at ArbCom. That might be a factor :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 04:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You will find firstly that I "broadly agree" with the proposal. I feel it is a workable procedure, unlike the one previously proposed.  The differences, as briefly outlined by Risker above, are substantive and important.  Finally, I would suggest that the manner by which this proposal was created is significantly more likely to engender support than the one you adopted.   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 11:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion from Lar's comment

 * Copied over from the main page. Discussion should be continued below. Carcharoth (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure about the "arbcom decides when more are needed" part, I'm thinking that may not be ideal. There should have to be an election at least every X months (duno what X is but at least once a year?)  The rest seems sound enough to broadly agree with. ++Lar: t/c 23:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm - is a surplus of users with access to otherwise confidential information really a good thing? Holding regular elections would just keep giving more people access to this information even though there might not be any more people needed.  The way I see it is: there should only be as many checkusers/oversights that are needed and ArbCom should have a pretty good handle on when things are falling behind.  Your thoughts on that? - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggested that we go to regular elections if needed, for example on the first Sunday of each quarter, and we are discussing doing it, still. This was one of the few loose ends that we need to decide but not urgent. We wanted to get something in place for the next appointment which will be fairly soon. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 00:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Copied over from the main page. Discussion should be continued below. Carcharoth (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well - I still think that we should not have any extra users around with access to this sensitive data. If we have a need for additional personnel then the Committee should plan an election.  If things are getting done within a reasonable amount time and the existing CUs/OSs aren't "overworked" then that should be a sign that no more are needed at the time. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, it should be based on supply and demand. Tiptoety  talk 04:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly and fully agree with this.  [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 11:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is the plan (to have a surplus of people) then I may oppose the proposal. I'd appreciate further input from FloNight, or any arb, as she said it was still being discussed. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Internally, the Committee is doing a complete review of all matter related to special access. As one part we are discussing a process of reviewing people with Checkuser and Oversight access to see if they should retain access. So far, we agree that their activity level and continuing need for the tool (for example, outgoing ing arb would no longer need). I personally think that the position should be for fixed period such as 3 years with annual review for activity level. But there is not agreement on the Committee for something that rigid. Can't say the form it will take but in the end there should be a process put in place to address surplus. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I wasn't clear. I want to know if there are going to be regular elections (of vetted candidates, of course) rather than elections when additional personnel are needed. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No intention to increase the number of people with CU or OS access by having regular elections. The idea is to have a set time to consider if more people are needed and then have an election if they are needed. This has the benefit of us regularly evaluating the activity level of people with access, moving them out of the position if they are no longer interested or able to do the work, and select new volunteers as needed. Under this method, we may initially be reducing the number of people with access if they are no longer interest in doing the work and have be relatively inactive in the role, instead of increasing the number. As a start, we've asked the outing going arbs to let us know if they want to continue their access to do work in the area rather than use it primarily for case work as perhaps they did while on the Committee. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer we just have an election rotation and the committee ask inactive CUs/OSs to stand down or seek re-election (though if is is three seeking reelection and we use simple approval voting that won't work). No one here has a capacity to judge whether or not supply or demand for checkusers will be high >1 month from now.  More to the point, I don't think we have an excess of CUs right now.  There is CU work to be done at SSP (even if requests aren't explicitly asking for a CU) and the backlog there has a great deal to do with the administrators expected to work on sockpuppet cases being denied technical tools necessary to make a big decisions (indef many accounts) on anything but WP:DUCK cases. Protonk (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This lack of attention might be helped (a) if there were requests for CU attention (I know I could give more time to the task!) and (b) by the soon-to-arrive WP:SSPI, which should make the system more streamlined. I would prefer to make any decisions about an excess or a need in a few weeks' time, when this process and the new CUs on the AC have bedded in.   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 11:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My comment was in the context (unstated, sorry) of there also being a process for removal of those checkusers and oversighters who no longer used their permissions. ++Lar: t/c 06:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of rights
As brought up by a few editors at the straw poll, there is a feeling that a similar process should be in place to "de"-CheckUser or "de"-Oversight someone. While I agree there needs to be some very stringent checks and balances, much of what CheckUsers and Oversights do is not viewable by the public. Many of the reasons for their actions are justified through emails, mailing lists, or off-wiki discussions with ArbCom members, other CUs/OVs ect. For this reason, a similar system for removing CU/OV rights (where the community would !vote) is not a good idea. As such, a totally different system needs to be put in place, possibly something like the review board? Tiptoety talk 04:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think a more effective method for auditing Checkusers and Oversight needs to be implemented. I think that requiring a No Confidence style vote for an CUer or OSer might be used by the new review panel as one way to remedy for a complaint in certain situations. But in other situations, direct permanent removal of access would be the most appropriate way to handle the matter. Because of the varying types of problems that may occur as well as concerns about privacy, no single method will fit the bill. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We've seen arbitrators collect lopsided no confidence votes, yet nothing happens. Will the Committee spontaneously grow a backbone and start enforcing standards on their own members?  Jehochman Talk 16:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The 2009 Arbitration Committee is starting to methodically review the Committee's policies and processes. At the top of the list are items related to giving and removing special access, including administrators, 'crats, checkusers, and oversighters. As well, the Committee is engaged in discussion about the appropriate process for evaluating and sanctioning arbitrators. I anticipate that written policies will eventually be developed for both. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good news. Such situations are difficult, I am sure, and it would make sense to set up a fair, transparent process before it is needed. Jehochman Talk 04:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two things essential to a democratic system -- the ability to vote and freedom of the press. If voters do not know all the necessary facts about a candidate's actions, voting is meaningless.  In this case, it is almost always impossible for voters to know all the facts necessary to make this kind of judgment.  A vote of confidence from the community, is, I feel, unlikely to be useful in the case of checkuser and oversight.  This exists to an extent with the Ombudsman Commission.  I don't see the review board concept as necessary -- a declaration from the Committee that they intend to be rigorous about enforcing the relevant policies (and also giving the impression that they are being upheld) would be welcome.   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 19:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the key for me. The chances of the turkeys voting for Christmas is pretty slim and we can't vote to pluck them, so yeah, what Jehochman said. FloNight, I'll believe it when I see it.Grace Note (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:My oppose
Roger Davies asked me to expand on my oppose in talke. OK. The proposal claims to split scrutiny between the "community" and "ArbCom" without specifying how this is to be done [beyond making some candidates go through an election process]. I'm worried that this will be used in order to turn this into the Review Board that appears to be having problems under its own name on the other page. Other problems:
 * 1) doesn't specify if ArbCom will have its own rules for vetting beyond whim. It would be nice if such selection principles are stated, even if they are obvious.
 * 2) Editors who are arbitrators, or who have been arbitrators in the past 12 months, are disqualified from voting. - what difference does this make, all the candidates will be pre-vetted anyway?
 * 3) Simple CU and OSers "elected" pose political problems not necessarily conducive to the smooth operation of the site, and it might prove awkward to remove them given the legitimacy they can claim. Not sure really if this is a good thing or bad thing actually, but it seems strange to create more potentially entrenched problems when we still haven't set something up that keeps them in line. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 12:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Committee very much want to hear the views of people that see problems with the proposal. Our intention is to have one or more FAQs that covers the specifics in more detail. But before we wrote it and the other detailed on-wiki pages, we wanted to get the general thoughts of the Community. So far the comments are inline with our internal discussions. The Committee largely supported moving to a process that included a Community election. We started out with several good ideas. They needed to be merged in a way that brought the best concepts from each one. Our intention was to present the proposed policy in a form that could be voted on, but with the understanding that we were going to make changes to it to smooth out some of the final issues. I share your concerns about #3. But since most of the people that currently have OS and CU access were elected in a similar process (ArbCom election), I don't think we are really adding an new element. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My thoughts about #2 were that once the committee has vetted the candidates, the committee really should stand back and let the community take over. Two reasons come to mind:If a serious issue was raised midway through the election then it shows the arbs and ex-arbs are not omniscient.  In this event, arbs and ex-arbs may be tempted to weight in on the matter quickly in order to rectify their error, which would be a touch of death.</li><li>A committee member may decide to not participate in the vetting process of a person they dont trust, allowing a community member to proceed to the next phase, and then torpedo the candidate.</li></ol>The committee should be restrained to only "vetting" rather than opining, so that these roles are not filled with only people that the arbs know and trust.  The community is quite capable of looking for problems. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the responses. Given the limited (though admittedly high-level) responsibilities of CUers/OSers, the intimate understanding needed, I don't really see what an election does beyond conferring upon them stronger personal positions. This is surely the opposite of what we need. We need transparency and accountability. Elections aren't that. An elected review board beyond the power of the patronage and social networks [that informally will always build up] of those being reviewed is necessary. It's fine for the elected arbs to study candidates and appoint CUers and OSers are their collective discretion so long as, after that, there is another group acting as a check against minor abuse and as a buffer against the mistakes or group-culture or the usually fine but not in theory perfect ArbCom. Maybe I'm reading it the wrong way, but this whole thing though not caused solely by it, is partially a reaction to the accusations against David Gerrard for FT2? In that case it is difficult to see what an election would have done. It is not difficult on the other hand to see what a review board could have done. BTW, can you guys tell me that this thing isn't in any way a substitute for the Review Board or that some aspect of it isn't intended to creep into it? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

How do the Arbs themselves fit into this?
One issue that the proposal doesn't consider is the fact that a significant number of checkusers and oversighters are sitting or former arbitrators. It notes that it is current practice for CU and OS to be given on request to these individuals, but not explicitly whether this practice is to change. If this process is intended to become the sole channel for acquiring CU/OS rights, how will the vetting process accomodate the fact that a significant number of candidates are nominally on the reviewing panel? Naturally arbitrators asking for permissions would have no direct say in their own 'clearance', but how would the vetting process be conducted in that situation to ensure that is it A) transparent to accusations of cabalism, and yet B) private in the sense that other Arbitrators are free to voice concerns? It's not fair on either the candidate or the other Arbitrators to expect a (potentially controversial) discussion of the candidate to take place on a mailing list or internal wiki that the candidate has access to; yet it would be unacceptably opaque for such a discussion to take place outside the normal ArbCom channels.

There is also the question of how this proposal meshes with Arbitrators' need to have occasional access to the Checkuser and Oversight logs for the purposes of evaluating Arbitration Cases. Is there an implication that ArbCom will ask the stewards to 'slice and dice' the CU/OS permissions to give Arbitrators log access only unless they take this new route to gaining the full permissions? If so, should the fact that these permissions are acquired through a separate process be mentioned? <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 13:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it has been the past custom for Arbitrators to get access to Oversight and Checkuser by asking for it, during the recent ArbCom election the Community took that into consideration when they made their selections for the 2009 Committee. IMO, this process will continue to be used since I think that Arbitrators will need to do checks for themselves when deciding some cases. Mentioning this custom in the policy would clarify the issue, yes. My hope is that we will move to a different form of auditing Checkuser and Oversight access where ArbCom will not be directly involved. The current proposal for a Review Board does not separate that function from ArbCom, yet. I think we need to move in that direction. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Philosophical problems, a plea for clue>numbers
My first annoyance with this is that there is a "poll" prominently on the project page here, whilst discussion is relegated to the back. I am REALLY concerned about this, because it seems to be indicative of the way things are headed on wikipedia. We are moving away from discussion, where the strength of the case is what carries the day, to "let's poll/elect/vote". I suspect a minority of those voting will bother to read the discussion, and so they vote on the strength of their gut reaction to the proposal, without listening to what (perhaps more experienced) users think before coming to a view.

That procedural concern - that numbers now matter more than clued discussion - is at the heart of my difficulty with the proposal itself. Yet again, arbcom respond to a minority who have been badmouthing it and expressing a lack of confidence in it, by expressing a lack of confidence in its own judgement. (It was the same with the review board - not only are arbcom presenting themselves as unfit to review, they also expressed themselves as unfit to choose the reviewers!). Now, let's think how this works. We need checkusers, say. Arbcom invites people to submit their names. Out 15 arbs (who are supposed to be out most experienced and trusted users) vet the names and removed anyone unsuitable. Then, rather than make a decision, they submit the choice to an RfA-like process, where anyone with 150 edits can jump in and say "oppose - he's not used enough edit summaries/ written enough DYKs," or "he blocked me once" or "he deleted my userbox 4 years ago and I've hated him since". The one thing the community seems to agree on is that RfA sucks, why are we preferring it to a discussion by out 15 chosen best members?

(aside - how on earth can anyone with 150 edits assess what's needed in a checkuser on wikipedia, know the history, and assess a candidate's suitability in a rounded way? No really, that's a serious question?)

I'd also ask: "what's broken about the current system?" It seems to me that the most worrying bit of checkuser oversight recently has NOT been those recently appointed by arbcom, but older hands who are not sensitive to recent concerns. We'd be better addressing that. It seems more urgent to end the notion that once you've got the tools you've got the tools, since that leads to the sense of power. Why not allow arbcom to appoint checkusers in the first instance, for an initial one year term. If they wish to have the tools beyond that, they need the approval of both arbcom AND the community - renewed every 12 months (or maybe 24). Yes, that would still involve an election type process, but people be voting on the concrete question of how they'd used the tools and responded to any concerns raised rather than just whether they liked the person in general. Better that than another popularity contest.

OK, I'll admit my bias here. At times in the past I was doing a LOT of BLP related work, I considered asking for oversight. (I've no interest in it now.) I think I could have probably convinced arbcom that I'd use it reasonably and with enough clue. However, I'm not fool enough to think for a minute I'd come through any mass participation beauty contest. But then, maybe a system that rules out people like me is not a bad system at all.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the merits of discussion is that it can reveal when someone such as yourself didn't carefully read the related proposal. One of the downsides of the pure discussion system you describe is that they actually tend to be "won" by those with the most perseverance (some call it tendentiousness), rather than the most clue, which generally gives everything on Wikipedia what might be called a craziness-bias. --JayHenry (t) 01:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did I describe a "pure discussion system"? That's news to me. I think I described a system where people input, but arbcom decide. Yes. Did you carefully read what I wrote?--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I refer only to this sentence: "We are moving away from discussion, where the strength of the case is what carries the day, to "let's poll/elect/vote"." The problem with this system is that such discussions tend to be dominated by those with the most perseverance (some call it tendentiousness), rather than the most clue.  I've struck "pure" as it's beside the point. --JayHenry (t) 02:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Re "moving away from discussion, where the strength of the case is what carries the day, to 'let's poll/elect/vote'" : Discussion is a good prelude to decision making but it isn't a decision making process itself. Once you've finished the discussion you still need to decide what to do. That can be on the basis of a majority of varying strengths (OMG but that's like a poll!) or it can be some designated person or group who makes the decision. At the moment Wikipedia simply doesn't have a good answer to what that method is supposed to be as a general matter of instituting changes. One of the more useful things Arbcom can try to do while it still has the influence of having popular newly elected members is to try to lead the community towards a decision making framework that can be used in the future. If you have a better system in mind than vote counting then by all means suggest it but I doubt that "Arbcom decides" would be a sustainable basis for that framework even if the arbitrators have the time and inclination to make every decision.


 * On a side note, the arbitrators are people who were willing to take the position, presumably felt that they had the time available, and for whom there was sufficient support for the idea that they'd make an okay job of dispute resolution. Although they will tend to be amongst the more experienced and trusted users, telling them that they are "our most experienced and trusted users" probably isn't helpful. 92.39.197.238 (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well they are a damn sight more experienced and trusted than people with 150 edits! But seriously, most organisations leave complex decisions to representative groups (or agents appointed by them) rather than to straw polls. The representatives are FAR more likely to take the time to make good decisions than the passing voter. Further, elections, particularly for tools that don't matter much to the community as a whole are likely to be the preserve of small motivated subsections, who are likely to be far less representative of the general will than a group elected in a high profile election. (See RfA as a case-in-point. I fail to see how using an RfA system, which is what this will become, can in any way yield better results than the current system.) If we really MUST elect a review board and elect checkusers (and any clue tells you more elections = less participation) then why not elect ONE group and allow them to appoint and dismiss checkusers - that means only one election?)--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A few points from my own personal perspective, in response to what Scott MacDonald said.
 * There are, in the community, a lot more than 17 people who can comment with great clue and perception. Vetting candidates for checkusers and oversight is currently part of ArbCom's role, but to be frank, when a name comes up that some of us have not heard of before, then community input really is needed. The other side of the coin applies as well - ArbCom should not just appoint the people the members have "heard of", or know enough about to approve without detailed investigation. There needs to be a way to ask "what do people think of this candidate? Is he or she OK?" The other thing is trust. The community needs to trust those appointed to use these tools, and the ArbCom need some up-to-date way to assess that.
 * The points about CU/OS term limits and sensitivity to recent concerns might be better raised here.
 * The point about polling and discussion is valid, but it is difficult to come up with an approach that works well here. In my view, the best approach is to highlight the discussion and then direct people to vote. In addition, my view is that the community vetting process should be more about discussion than voting, and I think that was the intent. If the emphasis has swung too far towards voting and "elections", then that might be a concern.
 * Your proposal for a one-year appointment followed by a community "confidence vote" is not a bad idea, but there are arguments against it. It is also a bit late for this proposal. Can you think of a way to incorporate late proposals such as yours without disrupting the current proposal?
 * One possibility, in future, is to publicly post proposals that ArbCom (or any other group or individual) have come up with, and to then allow a period of time for alternative proposals to be proposed by individuals or other groups, followed by discussion and amendments, and then for all the proposals to be "voted" on (in theory, this is how policy and guideline creation should work, even now). One problem is that this massively expands the overheads and time taken. Give people one proposal to read about, discuss and vote on, and they will do so. Give them 2-3 (or more) variants and they might not bother. Limit the number put forward for voting and who decides which ones are to be voted on or adopted? These are perennial questions that are not easy to answer. Carcharoth (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

On hats
In response to Nihiltres, I think the openness is a good thing, but the flaws are too great and if we implement this system I can't really imagine it ever changing. Inertia is powerful here. I do not think it will lead to reduced concentration of power, because there is no method to object to the proliferation of ever more perma-superusers. Take a bureaucrat. The ArbCom is culturally adverse to any notion of "separation of powers", (This is a natural consequence of a unipolar system and no particular fault of the individuals. Nearly everyone truly believes that they are fair and impartial.) and are quite likely to approve nearly any bureaucrat who applies. After all, bureaucrats, by dint of their appointment process, had a great deal of community trust at one point. Bureaucrats are also highly visible. Because there's no respect for separation of powers, the ArbCom would likely feel there is some sort of faux pas involved in declining one bureaucrat and not others.

So nearly any user with powers who throws his hat in will a) be pre-vetted because ArbCom culturally does not really care about separation of powers and wants to avoid the faux pas and b) will likely receive a huge level of support from the community because hats are highly visible (not to mention that you'll see the RFA regulars talk about things like the "'crat track" as a road to becoming an admin on steroids).

Since ArbCom has no aversion to concentration of powers, and since having powers lends visibility, then this system is almost certain to singularly select users that already have power, and make them more powerful. --JayHenry (t) 01:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have yet to hear any convincing argument that separation of powers on wikipedia is an essential or even productive philosophy. I agree that it is essential in any successful democracy, but we are not a democracy.  Wikipedia does not have a 'government' in the same way that a country or corporation has a government; we are merely collections of users with various technical tools and varying levels of respect amongst our colleagues.  Where is the benefit in prescribing that those groups of users should be mutually-exclusive and not overlap? I'm not saying that there aren't potentially reasons to support such a statement, merely that a number of users seem to hold the position axiomatic without any real evidence to support it. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 12:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've given examples where separation of powers has meant inefficiency. What is needed is consultation with others, when appropriate. Some tools naturally complement each other well. ++Lar: t/c 15:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You put me in a difficult position. Etiquette is such that I can't outline what I feel are the very obvious examples of superusers overstepping their bounds because we are not an environment that deals well with criticism.  See the sort of environment that User:Tony1 has faced for attempting to document admin missteps, or the fact that to some extent entire sites have been created because of the difficulty of raising criticisms here!  When I've opposed candidates for this in the past I've even been told that I'm ridiculing and scorning individuals!  (I had some hope that a high-profile incident this very week would open people's eyes a bit to what myself and others have been talking about for years, alas the incidents never do.)  If I created a page listing the examples, it'd be quickly hauled to MFD and I to ANI, and frankly it's unfair to bait me into that.  I'll make a couple general points 1) I'm talking about principles of governance not government in its broadest sense.  I obviously know we're not a government so please don't derail this with semantics.  There is a vernacular around these principles because they are well known and the subject of books about governance, management, organizational thinking, etc.  (Also note that I'm not talking about total mutual exclusion).
 * I'm tempted to write an essay, since I've been offering evidence for two years now. I'm not sure where to start if you dispute the potential legitimacy of the premise.  Do you dispute that many editors and admins are frustrated with the "higher-ups"?  That regular users are culturally frustrated and often frightened with admins?  One huge benefit is that almost all humans naturally defend someone in the same position as themselves.  Why are people sometimes reckless with tools?  I'll explain by way of analogy:
 * Imagine one of the realistic car racing games in a video arcade. When you drive a car in a video arcade, you drive quite recklessly.  When you drive a car in real life, you drive much more carefully.  In real life, there are consequences for bad driving.  Having flags on Wikipedia is like the car video game, when it ought to be at least a little bit more in the real world.  If you drive through the video game village, no harm no foul.  If a superuser drives through the Wikipedia village, then he goes before the Wikipedia town council, consisting of his fellow superusers, and while they may say some harsh words, there is no tangible consequence.
 * Have we ever given any sort of non-verbal sanction to a checkuser, bureaucrat, oversight, arbitrator, or arbcom-l member, without the most influential magazine in America getting involved? Is it because we always pick perfect (into perpetuity, for these are lifetime roles) candidates?  Or, as seems likely to me, is it because they're the same cultural group, all on the same mailing list and don't even really have a mechanism for any sort of self-sanction, or much faculty for self-criticism?  The higher you climb on Wikipedia the less consequence you face for anything.  An editor who is persistently uncivil will never become an admin.   An admin who is persistently uncivil will never lose his adminship.  It generally takes persistent and even epic misuse before anyone takes removing adminship seriously.  Why is this?  Where's the root of this profound cultural problem? --JayHenry (t) 16:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is much good material there, JayHenry. Some of it is a bit tangential so I hope you will allow me to be a bit more tangential still when I say that I don't think these roles should be "for life". I remain a big proponent of admin recall (while acknowledging that it's imperfect, not for everyone, and can be gamed) and I have said elsewhere on this page that perhaps there are OVs or CUs who should stand down since they apparently don't ever use their permissions. I stood down from an adminship (on en:ws) because I had gotten it, and then realised I wasn't using it at all. So I think you're right about part of this. But I still don't think that having more than one bit is necessarily bad (obviously, since I have quite a few more than one when you count across all wikis). ++Lar: t/c 23:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm happy to discuss the principle of separation of powers at length. I just realized my already lengthy response is on a tangent. The issue, Happy Melon, is that you know lots of people in the community care about this. Are you so convinced that you're correct and we're incorrect that you'd support a process that completely mutes our opinion? I believe myself to be correct, but I don't support muting you. It seems that's the real issue, not necessarily what the particular opinion is. You're welcome to disagree with me on the issue of separation of powers, but I think you are taking it too far in creating a system that circumvents my concern from even being weighed. --JayHenry (t) 16:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * While I respect, again, your idea of separation of powers, again, why is it a reason to oppose this proposal? I see two main possibilities: this proposal is implemented in some form and ArbCom begins a practice of allowing people checkuser and oversight access through a public process, or this proposal is rejected and we continue the status quo of ArbCom privately determining who should have those bits. I think you're missing that point, and I'd like to note that no one has yet suggested that this proposal is mutually exclusive with the idea of implementing some sort of separation of powers. I'm neutral on the issue: we do have concerns that people could become unaccountable super-admins, but on the other hand we do have a number of dedicated, trustworthy users who are deserving of multiple concurrent rights. Is there a particularly good reason that implementing this proposal in some form would cause a major issue with separation of power? If yes, please explain. If no, this issue should probably be discussed elsewhere, though it should probably still be discussed. :) { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 19:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It was my intention to answer you very directly tying my concerns to this proposal. I think the openness aspect of this proposal is a good thing, but the flaws are too great and if we implement this system I can't really imagine it ever changing.  Under this proposal nearly any user with hats to begin with, who requests CU and oversight will a) be pre-vetted under this proposal because ArbCom culturally does not really care about separation of powers and b) will likely receive a huge level of support from the community because hats are highly visible.  Under this proposal only support is registered.  So this proposal will cause a major issue with separation of powers because the structure is such that a user who already has hats is likely to gain more by dint of their visibility. --JayHenry (t) 23:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As your comments by their own admission don't answer my question, there's not much I can say. If you want to discuss specific details privately, feel free to e-mail me.  While your analogy is entertaining, specific evidence that a lack of separation of powers has led to users "driv[ing] through the Wikipedia village" is precisely what the discussion is missing; without evidence, it is just a bare assertion.  In that context, I don't think it's fair for you to say that I "support a process that completely mutes our opinion".  Unless there is merit in the separation of powers approach, and you present no evidence that there is, this process doesn't mute anyone's opinions at all.  <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 22:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect, Happy-melon, while I declined to provide a catalog of missteps of the project's most powerful editors, I dispute your claim that I didn't answer your question. (Consider, please, proof that we currently have a problem, wouldn't be evidence for what the best solution is--that's exactly what argument is for!  Unless you believe things are perfect--do you?--then we depend on argument to determine what systems might be worth experimenting with to make things better) .   I provided a detailed argument about why separation of powers would create the incentives for more careful use of the tools.  You explicitly asked to hear such an argument.  To say I didn't provide it is unfair.  Read your final sentence carefully: "Unless there is merit in [an approach that does not exist], and you present no evidence that there is".  How on earth am I to provide evidence of a counterfactual?  Surely you can see that's an impossible demand.  Your conclusion from your demand is baffling to me.  If I cannot provide evidence of something which does not exist, then it's okay to create a system that discounts my view? --JayHenry (t) 03:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in responding, I'd rather forgotten this thread. You are correct that you can't prove a counterfactual, but I'm not asking you to do so.  What you gave above is a hypothetical analysis of how separation of powers might be an improvement on the current situation.  That's not what I asked for, which was evidence of why the current situation is unsatisfactory, that is, why an absence of separation of powers has been a Bad Thing.  You suggest that separation of powers would prevent a problematic situation occuring, and although the argument is theoretical I can see the merit in it.  But if you do not first demonstrate that the problem you try to solve actually exists in the absence of the solution, then the hypothetical provides no real support to the solution itself.  <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 14:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Jay, I don't see a reason why you need to compulsorily have a separation of powers. I am a crat, oversight, and have access to OTRS. There are many situations where my role as a bureaucrat compliments that of oversight. For example, we do get several privacy related tasks to oversight; here I need to use my oversight abilities to clean up personally identifiable information; use my admin tools to delete material that is not covered by OS, protect pages that privacy violators vandalise, and as a crat, also forcibly rename users whose username that violate oversight policies. Similarly, a person on the oversight team with checkuser privileges can verify socks who routinely violate policies. Having bureaucrats on board does help speed up oversight that has huge privacy-related implications. Why should it be detrimental to the normal functioning? =Nichalp  «Talk»=  06:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As someone who has been heavily involved in Checkuser appointments and discussions this last year, I can say that "X is a crat" doesn't carry much weight. "X is greatly respected and has a reputation for care and involvement" and so on, does. But as users, crats are on completely equal grounds with all others, and no decision I've seen was based on the datum "is a crat"; rather, some crats have a reputation such as to be considered for CheckUser. FT2 (Talk 04:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion from B's comment

 * This discussion has been moved from the oppose section of the mainpage by Tiptoety  talk


 * 1) I have problems with this on a number of levels. One of the main ones is that I don't think we should open the doors to having large numbers of people with checkuser and oversight permissions.  In recent memory, I haven't had an oversight or checkuser request take more than a brief amount of time to get a response so to me, that says there isn't a shortage.  I think these positions need to have a good amount of oversight (no pun intended) to guard against abuse and the more people with the permission, the easier it is for something to slip through the cracks.  I am far more encouraged by the review board than I am by this proposal. --B (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure I understand your last objection. How will this have a negative effect on oversight? More users with the permissions means more users to check that its being used correctly. As the size of a group increases, the chances that they'll all consistently agree with each other and form a "cabal" decreases. Each CU/OS will have the review by arbcom and the community, increasing review of promotions as well. Mr.Z-man 19:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a whole lot easier for 1 bad apple out of 100 to slip through the cracks than 1 out of 10. Sure, more checkusers = more people with access to the checkuser logs, but that doesn't automatically mean that every action is going to get reviewed.  What it more likely would mean is that the checkusers who are reviewing the logs will have more logs to review and thus things will slip through the cracks. --B (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * End discussion, please continue below.

You're seeing public requests. A lot of major cases you simply won't see -- I had a sock ring (Zippycup) which ended up with a weeks work and about 45 socks last year. I found another with about 90 (Nocturnal sleeper) a while later. And users like Grawp never really hit RFCU. The moral is, be cautious about assuming from your personal experience, what the workload is. We'd tend to rely on Checkuser feedback and usage rates for that much more than guesswork since the relationship of cases to time is extremely tenuous. FT2 (Talk 04:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)