Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Checkuser and oversighter selection

Reposting results for quick reference
CheckUser results
 * Note: 393 users participated in this election

Oversight results
 * Note: 368 users participated in this election

60% threshold
As you can see, this would have given us three CUs and one oversighter. Better, but still well below what is needed (although Ryan is so close I suppose he might have gotten a pass). People say RFA is broken, but at least there you have some idea why things turn out the way they do. And I've never seen an RFA candidate get over 100 users in support, oppose, and neutral. It really seems like a lot of users just didn't care about this. Among those that did care, we have no way of evaluating why they made the decisions they did. Was it based on the answers the questions, or did they just pick out names they recognized and checked support for those they liked and oppose for those they didn't regardless of whether they could handle one more admin tool? I think it's interesting that the users with the most supports also have the most opposes, and the user with the fewest supporters has nearly 200 neutral votes. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Another alternative method of counting votes, rather than a minimum support threshold, would be a maximum oppose threshold. That is, candidates would be disqualified if they received more than 30% opposition. In the case of this election it would be more than 117 opposes for checkuser candidates and more than 110 opposes for oversight candidates. I don't particularly support this notion, but if one is considering asking the WMF to rewrite its voting standards then one should consider more than one variation. Risker (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * An interesting notion, and we'd get five oversighters out of it, but that would meant that in this case the users who got the fewest supports would be selected. I think Ryan's case is a perfect example of what went wrong here. He has 57 more supports than opposes, that is a significant margin. (And by this method I would have missed it by one lousy vote, that just hurts) Beeblebrox (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is a bit of a kick in the teeth. Another possibility would be reworking SecurePoll so that the default is "support" and one would have to consciously change to a "neutral" or "oppose" vote.  That, in fact, is closer to the RFA process, where anything other than a support vote is expected to come with reasoning.  Again, not something I particularly support, but it is technically feasible. Risker (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A separate point is that if we move away from 70%, we will have closely tied Arbcom to the process. And if ever in the future Arbcom decides to no longer select candidates or Arbcom implodes or just can't agree in a timely fashion whatever reason; this non-70% process we will have converted to won't meet WMF requirements.  This is a minor point certainly but I want to make sure it isn't completely overlooked.-- Birgitte  SB  17:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember re the high number of neutral votes that neutral is simply the default setting - that doesn't mean "don't care", it may well mean "I have never seen or heard the candidate and therefore don't trust my judgement of my candidate at this time". Some past RfA disasters (eg where the person's turned out to be a sock!) are potent reminders of what can happen when a community votes with too little information available to it. This is not the fault of the candidates - it's inherent to any process where people who may only be known to a select group of users runs, and like I said on the main page, it's not even unique to Wikipedia. As for "users with the most supports also have the most opposes" - it simply suggests that user was controversial in some way and their approach had both its fans and its critics. Orderinchaos 01:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Evil IP Address's view
Claims the election was "extremely difficult to find". I disagree - in fact, it was difficult to miss it every time it popped up at the top of my watchlist notice!  Aiken   &#9835;   18:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought that was odd as well, there was a banner every time I opened a talk page for the duration of the process. Maybe he clicked the "dismiss" button the first day and forgot... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also inclined to agree. As I use more than one computer to edit I dismissed it once and still saw it every time I logged in somewhere different. I really don't see what else could have been done to make it more prominent. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

view by Collect is based on shaky logic
I think there is a real weakness in the logic of this position. It presumes that everyone who participated was intimately familiar with CU and Oversight and know what the workload is and how much of it is being addressed in a timely fashion. That would be nice, but it's not the case. In fact, in the case of oversight it's virtually impossible to know since it is mostly discussed by email and once oversight is used the revisions disappear. I don't think this result in any way reflects the communities rejection of the very concept that we need more CU and oversight functionaries. Actually, this goes back to the exact problem I identified in my statement, that there was so little discussion we don't really know why things turned out this way. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The contrary view is what is shaky. Many people saw the solicitation to vote - the default assumption is that the few who did vote were actually cognizant about the posts.  Therefore my posaition is based on that view - that people who voted were well aware of what they were voting on.   Collect (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Collect, why is your "community thinks we have enough CU/OS" explaination more probable that alternatives such as "strategic/political voting," "protest voting," or even "bad candidates"? There were no comments at all. You might as well argue that the oppose votes were really against the new skin for the site. Frankly, that's more probable than your explaination. Anyone even casually aware of SPI would not conclude, "gee, we have enough checkusers." Cool Hand Luke 19:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. As an SPI clerk I can say I constantly see that SPI is backlogged needing checkusers, to the point that I have considered declining borderline requests on the simple grounds that the checkusers can't take any more work right now. Furthermore, I think trying to limit a subset of checkusers to "only SPI" is just bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. I also think it is really unfeasible, as many SPI cases later go deeper into what might be termed as "non-SPI matters". -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 19:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In which case - note my suggestion that ArbCom create an SPI/CU position to take care of the perceived backlog.  Rather, the insistence that somehow CUs be elected without clear consensus is what I would regard as Bureaucracy for its own sake .  Collect (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What consensus? What we have here are numbers that's all. "Majority rules" and "consensus" are two different things. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You think that ArbCom does not have the ability to appoint checkusers, but that it does have to ability to create an new position and staff them without any community consultation whatsoever? The artificial distinction you draw here seems to be the very essence of "bureaucracy for its own sake." Cool Hand Luke 20:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, what userrights would these "SPI/CU"s have? Checkuser for SPI basically requires every userright assigned to the checkuser usergroup; I can't think of anything that would differentiate the two. NW ( Talk ) 20:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Any use of powers for an SPI/CU would be linked to specific SPI casses only. Seems logical from here - it would allow any backlog to be taken care of, and it does not establish any new layer of bureaucracy at all. As to whether ArbCom has such a power -- it is less of a reach than some of the other comments which would allow ArbCom stronger powers in determining who wins any election.  And when any backlog is taken care of, the SPI/CU position would cease.  It is an ad hoc solution to what is claimed as a problem. Collect (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is indeed bureaucracy writ large. For the life of me, I cannot see justification in giving someone access to a tool and then saying "but if we have a major vandalism attack that isn't reported on this specific page, you aren't allowed to help." Realistically, there is always an SPI backlog, it's just grown worse in recent months, so Cool Hand Luke's interpretation of your proposal is correct. Risker (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Concurring with Luke, NW and Risker. What would be the gain of distinguishing "SPI CU" from "non-SPI CU" compared to the bureaucracy? What would the difference be anyway? Same job, same trust, same function, same tool. We'd have CUs equally capable yet forbidden to assist in a sock case being consulted on the functionaries list? There isn't a "limited set", it's one tool not several. 2nd statement also flawed - most users don't see most oversight at work (by design) so cannot form a view if it's sufficiently staffed. Last, the basic assumption ("truism") is flawed: most seem to think it reflects on lack of on-wiki opinions which can give other users an idea what's come up. FT2 (Talk 10:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Dealing with misapprehensions of my position is fun. I did not in any place say that regular CUs could not work on SPI, nor does any fair reading of my comment allow for such a misinterpretation. What I said was that ArbCom, to alleviate the backlog, should reasonably have the power which it once used to appoint special CUs for the purpose of alleviating the SPI backlog, and that it could make such appointments on an ad rem basis.    The oopinion which I find flawed is that "the voters did not know what they were voting on" which, considering how few voters there were compared with the potential pool of voters, seems remarkably like "we know better than those who voted" type of aristocratic logic.  If one wishes to not sound like that, then the course of action is to explain to voters exactly what the problems are, not to say "you don't know the problems therefore yout votes are flawed." Collect (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than reanalyze past posts (by all of us), can we go forward then. Perhaps explain what a "special CU" would be or how it differs from any other we have? What I understand by your comment above is "Arbcom used to appoint off its own authority without a vote, it's still got that power, this time at least it should use it." I don't fully understand the rest (explain again if it's important?). Last, the community routinely makes decisions on tiny proportions of possible turnout, provided almost anyone who wanted to could add their view. Not usually a problem. FT2 (Talk 12:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea is that ArbCom has the established right to delegate some powers - that among these powers are those of CU. That SPI has an acknowledged backlog, and that delegating trusted users to run CUs to eliminate that backlog seems a no-brainer. That such users would not be permanent checkusers unless or until the current election system is changed, as "CU" appears now to be an "elected position."  Clear enough this time?  Menwhile, where people vote in an election, it is futile to say "but they don't know the facts."  The presumption is that they do know the facts. Collect (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (unindent) Realistically this wouldn't happen. Imagine someone appointed as a "non-permanent checkuser"; the next election is usually 6 months away (typically twice a year, perhaps 3 at most) so this user has full trust, tool access, CU data access for 4-6 months, proves their worth, builds up skill, and so on. I'm trying to imagine where the user would not end up a "permanent" CU anyway. (Reasons like poor conduct, complaints, burnout etc would all be resolved before any election or temp/perm anyway.) It would almost always be a mere formality, if they aren't fit to appoint they wouldn't get past AC+community temporary or permanent. Extra WP:BURO. If they aren't fit to do the job in the view of AC+community then appointment won't happen, if they are then no benefit in having "temp" vs. "perm" especially given the ongoing need for such users.


 * To the other point, it's worth recognizing human nature. Imagine a town election with no promotional activity, no TV or billboards, just names and a 20 line statement, most people would feel they don't know the candidates. Would they then spend days researching them? Mostly, no. They'd try and gauge a view from views and points made by others, and checking those out. It works well enough, if there is a concern or good point someone usually mentions it during the discussion. FT2 (Talk 13:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think (sincerely hope, at any rate) that "the Community" as a whole would be foolish enough to think that it has the data it needs to judge whether processes which by their very definition are outside their ability to scrutinise, are as well-staffed as they need to be. The fact that the serious shortfall in manpower we currently have does not have more obvious public consequences is a result of the Herculean effort being put in by a number of the other functionaries, not a suggestion that the situation is currently in any way satisfactory.  In this instance, any non-functionary who asserts that CU and OS are not short-staffed is simply wrong; or rather, mistaken in the belief that they are able to make such claims without the data that, by definition, they are not in a position to have.   Happy ‑ melon  21:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

previous discussions
There have been previous discussions about this. I've found two; please add any others. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee (search for 'oversight' and 'checkuser') - July 2008
 * Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight appointments - January 2009

A quick, practical end to this drama
Further to what Happy-Melon says above, I am inclined to end this needless drama by proposing that ArbCom simply lower the thresholds to appoint as many from the lists as it sees fit, given our provision of a preferential order of candidates. The Committee has already vetted the candidates for these highly sensitive jobs, and this is just the kind of issue we elected the arbs to manage: please let them get on with the job. On this occasion, I'm disinclined to be precious about some notion of the people's democratic sovereignty; we can use this experience to improve the voting system for next time. Better that we all go back to improving WP.

Support as proposer. Tony  (talk)  12:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to weakly agree, only because if we don't, the whole thing was a gigantic waste of everyone's time. They should not require a higher % than becoming an arbitrator.  Aiken   &#9835;   13:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable enough. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed - I don't see any reason to disregard the results because they didn't meet a predefined outcome. Orderinchaos 01:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. -- &oelig; &trade; 09:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Poll added to RFC. (Wanted to wait for the first couple of days until the direction of discussion became clear). FT2 (Talk 12:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

re View by Orderinchaos
Is that proposal not what we have got now, the neutrals are not counted and are thus "not voting" for the purposes of the count? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree. To me it looks like basically a small change in format without affecting the results. On the other hand this might not be such a bad thing for the reasons given by FT2 in his endorsement. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is correct - the neutrals don't affect the vote, but they possibly affect the perception. Orderinchaos 15:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, okay, I see where you are coming from. However, this would not effect the actual poll since no-one sees the other votes under the current system. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So who actually applied?
I realise not every applicant will want to be named, but there are a lot of rumours about people who applied and were rejected by ArbCom. If it's possible, I'd be interested to hear who of those had the possibility of getting 70% and, more interestingly, what ArbCom's rationale was for rejecting them. I think this shows that wee need an open voting system like RfA so that participants can clearly see what issues are brought up by opposers and those views can be challenged. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Users not achieving AC endorsement historically tend to be one of a handful of categories. A tiny number lack any chance (parallels people with 20 edits who seek adminship), but that's rare. More common grounds are that a certain level of exceptionally seasoned and respected adminship, and a certain mindset, as well as technical skill and respect for wiki ethos, is needed.


 * CU/OS are non-public functions so a possible issue related to volatility, judgment, insight, confidence-keeping, and carelessness is serious and needs more scrutiny than at RFA where we can just ANI/desysop afterwards for the occasional bad appointment. Users who don't seem to have the needed stamina to take the grind of these roles, or so far can't show a truly convincing, unmitigated, and committed track record, are more likely to be poorer candidates at CU/OS. Matters that do not speak to trust for an adminship role may well result in scrutiny or a degree of apprehension for possible CU/OS level.


 * As an illustration of this, think how many admins take actions at some time post-RFA that attract peer concern (carelessness, mistake, misjudgment, bad day, stress, etc). You want to aim at appointing users for CU/OS who are very unlikely to do that with the CU/OS privacy tools and private data, even with non-public tools, and have proven it through their admin track record. With 800 - 1100 active admins such standards are viable.


 * Many seeming-competent users do not apply. Some have some matter that is not a public concern and is in no way a blemish as an admin, but would mean they are not the very highest candidate available for presentation to the community at the time. That can (and does) go both ways - some strong concerns held by some users may be groundless or non-issues when checked; equally some very minor issues might be perceived as suggestive of potential weaknesses or traits, and give rise to "wait a year and see". Either way in a non-public trust based role you want people who are very clueful and for whom it's a well-refined instinct to do right.


 * You'd have to ask AC for more, vetting is (I'm told) a lot more rigorous these days. FT2 (Talk 14:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:100 page?
Um... When will it be updated? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Immediate options poll
Seems to be missing an option, which is adopt the "return to the old way" immediately and appoint those folk ArbCom deems suitable. ++Lar: t/c 16:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps mention it to FT2 if you are not wanting to wiki it in? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If I get one "Ya, you're right, that is missing" I probably will. :) I was busy watching the SpaceX Falcon 9 (not) launch though.++Lar: t/c 17:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But what would be the point of that? It's a bit like saying "OK, we humoured you by letting you think you had a say, but now we're going to completely ignore it". HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, that's point of the poll, they still have a say in the matter. Where are all those people that made all those oppose votes anyway? Seems like now would be a good time for some of them to come forward and explain themselves, since we have very few clues as to why there was such opposition. If they had a reason it would be nice to know what it was. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Good reason for missing it out, and that's simplicity.


 * For future the long discussion will guide us. But for this specific election, what options are there? If there was a "let Arbcom choose who", they would almost certainly choose from those in the election anyway (willing + vetted) and they have already agreed all candidates are "good enough". Not like they need to selectively choose who is "good" from those standing. So it's easier to merge that option into "highest first" (#1) and at least have some acknowledgement it's objective and doing its best to try and respect the voting. Also better to avoid the drama and agonizing of unexpected selective choice (imagine if AC chose #1 #5 and #6 oversighters or whatever, from AC's point 1/2/3 were just as valid.) For the purpose of resolving this poll, we don't have to add the burden of picking and choosing "the best"; any will be "good enough" otherwise they would not have passed vetting. Easier to say "highest first per voting", keep it simple, and be done, so this option in effect merges into option #1 for ease. FT2 (Talk 20:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Accounting for strength of opposition
Here's my take on the results (note the extra column on the end). Gross opposition is the proportion of all voters who opposed the candidate. It is my view (and that of several others commenting) a very important indicator for these elections; more useful than the support% being used on its own: -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Oversight results
 * Note: 368 users participated in this election


 * Well, yes - this was the "count" method that I proposed in my view, except I reversed it so the figures were mostly over the 70% requirement. I "came last" in that one, as I do here, and Ryan second to last (Ryan supported my proposal, I should note). Small point of us also being the second and first most support votes, but we accepted this as a way of resolving the impasse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wondering if this would be a "nonsense percentage". The proposed "gross opposition" is (oppose / (support + neutral)). But the neutral vote may well be badly meaningless - SecurePoll forces people to state "neutral" when "No vote" would have been more accurate. The "percentage of all voters who opposed" would be (oppose / (support + neutral + oppose)) which are all < 36%, or traditionally (oppose / (support + oppose)). Does this statistic (which doesn't mirror any stat we use in other polls and !votes) have utility? FT2 (Talk 21:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a different name? It mirrors both the opposition count and the (oppose / (support + neutral + oppose)). Simply put if it's over 50% it means that more than half the voters chose to actively oppose the candidate instead of support or stay neutral. In a vote without abstentions, as a measure of the strength of opposition, it is relevant. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't compute. If 10 oppose and 10 support, thats 100% on this formula. 10 oppose, 10 support, 20 obligated to vote neutral who didn't want to vote any option but had to because of the software, 33%. 10 support, 10 neutral for cause, 10 oppose, formula=50% but it's stated to mean 50% of "the voters" actively opposed where in fact its 33%. I don't think you can assume anything from neutral really. Too unclear. FT2 (Talk 23:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * More than half the voters looked at two of the candidates and said 'No' - not just 'don't care' or 'no vote', but 'I click this button to Oppose'. However it's stated I don't think you can really discount that. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Three got more opposes than supports, and yes. I'm just unconvinced this formula indicates what's said of it. FT2 (Talk 09:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

WTF?
What the hell has happened to this page? It's gone from being an RFC to something resembling a cross between a Californian ballot paper and the running order of the Kentucky Derby. – iride  scent  22:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Option 4?
"Return to the old way of having Arbcom choose candidates with no input from the community" added recently, is covered above which explains why it's not likely to be a valuable option.

To recap, even if AC took back the job of making the decisions completely, for this round they would almost certainly find themselves appointing "highest first" anyway per option #1. FT2 (Talk 01:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

End of RFC date?
The RFC ends in 30 days. It is better to establish a fixed date for something of this magnitude. Otherwise, there is a risk of low publicity (200+ people voted but only roughly 30 people commented here) and the risk of changing the rules after the RFC started. There is also the risk of "the RFC ends when I agree with the results and continues if I disagree with the results".

The 30 day period ends on June 30th.

If there are people who wish to end it early, consider keeping it open at least until June 21 (2/3 of the RFC period) and with at least 72 hours notice for the watchers to say something. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I pity the volunteer who tries to find a conclusion from it... other than, "most people dislike most of the options presented". LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I hereby pledge to close every RFC that way. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 19:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is sometimes the problem with these open discussions on policy, they get flooded with proposals to the point where it's impossible to have one conversation and come up with one solution. Nobody has edited the RFC at all in several days, it seems we are firmly entrenched at square one. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, at least the "Immediate Options" bit seems to be heading firmly in one direction. It might almost be worth closing that now since it's meant to be immediate. As for the longer-term proposals, we should probably leave them to see if one or two start to gain more support than the others, then perhaps hold a poll on the most popular ones? Alzarian16 (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Outcome
Option one is with the strongest support and should be implemented as soon as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have written a neutrally worded summary below. Option one has the 2nd highest support.  Option 2's support is higher.  Option 1 is similar to option 4 and option 4 is 80% oppose.Trying to be objective as possible, I'd say that there is no consensus for any option. We should ask ethicists what they feel but my initial feeling is that changing the election rules for an election that has already taken place is unethical.  In terms of legal challenges, retroactive laws are on extremely shaky grounds.  While Wikipedia is not law, Wikipedia does have a similar framework. How have others resolved problems where there are at least two very opposed solutions? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a fair bit more support for option one. This apparent balanced result has come about because of the oppose votes and most of the people that supported option 2 opposed option one resulting in those people having a undue weight on the outcome. IMO option one has more support, if users don't support this position then we should run a seven day vote comment with no option to oppose between option one and option two. Off2riorob (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to think that options 1 and 4 aren't all that similar. Option 4 includes the wording "without any input from the community", which suggests to me that ArbCom would be using their own processes rather than the election results to decide who they appoint (which is why I opposed it and supported option 1). Also we need to be clear when using the statistics which figures we're referring to: option 1 has the highest number of support !votes, but option 2 has the highest percentage support. The question is, which do we prioritise? Noting that the difference in percentage was only 2% but that option 1 had eight more support !votes, I'd suggest that if we are going to adopt any of the solutions immediately then it should probably be option 1. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The sad thing is that of one million Wikipedians, only about 30 or so people voted. The other sad thing is that there is no effort to combine the options, such as a combination 1-2.  Such combination could be done in many ways. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It is clear to me that there is no consensus for option 1 or 2. That is why I did not summarize that "1 is the winner" or "2 is the winner". If ArbCom is to decide, it behooves ArbCom to note the fact that there is no consensus. Otherwise, ArbCom risks losing objectivity (or risks looking like it is losing it), which it should fiercely defend. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if someone hadn't started the oppose votes the result is clear for option one apart from most of the people that voted for option two voted to oppose option one, these people have clearly had an undue weight on the result. One million wikipedians, is that the view out of your window? I also don't see out of my window any of the Arbcom have any objectivity issues. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The original CU/OS voting measured percentage, not raw number of support. So that suggests that percentage voting is the key.  If so, option 2 wins and option 1 is rejected.  But this RFC is for discussion, not voting.  If voting, we didn't set up the rules beforehand so we are repeating our mistake even worse!  Bottom line is there is not a consensus yet, I'm afraid to say. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as per my comments I see more support for option one and suggest we move forwards with that asap. I have left a note for the opener of the RFC and lets see what he has to say about it and perhaps tomorrow we can get a summing up from an ARBCOM member of the outcome and the way forward tomorrow. As I suggested a one week vote comment between option one and option two with no oppose option should seal the deal. Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One problem with that is that this is a re-vote. Yet the re-vote (option 2) is not what you want.  There is a conflict there.  Basically, you do not want a re-vote for CU/OS but this RFC turned out badly so you want a revote with the option removed.


 * Ethically, I see a problem with that philosophy.


 * The way I see a problem is that there is no consensus and very little effort to compromise. Any compromise proposals?  Surely, some can be thought up.  I thought of two while brainstorming but nobody like them.  Maybe others can brainstorm.


 * I wonder if there are ethicists out there that can examine the different options and comment.


 * I am open and want dialogue and hope others do, too. Every option has an advantage and disadvantage to selection.


 * Option 1's advantage is that there is the highest total number of support.


 * Option 2's advantage is that there is the highest percentage of support and percentage was the criteria for the original election, not number of supports.


 * Option 4 suffers from having the same defacto result as option 1 but is widely opposed. If so, option 1 may not be very popular.


 * None of the options had anywhere near the support as the original secure poll where 200+ people voted.


 * None of the options have widespread support. There is not a consensus for 1 or 2.


 * This is a difficult situation. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary of poll
This is done in the most neutral fashion without an attempt to shape any specific conclusion.

1. There is not a clear consensus to do any one kind of resolution.

2. Option 1 support/oppose/neutral is 21-14-2. That means support 60% or 55% if you include neutrals into the total vote (neutrals as non-support) or 61% for non-opposed (support+neutral). Option 1 is to seat some of the losing OS/CU candidates.

3. Option 2 support/oppose/neutral is 13-8-1. That means support 62% or 59% if you include neutrals in the total vote (neutral as non-support) or 64% for non-opposed (support+neutral)

4. The other options have either few votes are or are not contenders to be chosen.

5. The defacto steps taken by option 1 and 4 are the same, i.e. losing CU/OS candidates appointed.

6. Option 4 is strongly opposed with support/oppose/neutral at 2-10-0 or 80% opposed.

6a. The similarity between options 1 and 4's net result suggests either that legal formality is very important to Wikipedians (there is a legal technical difference between options 1 and 4 as the CU/OS are appointed but the election is thrown out versus election rules changed retroactively) or that Wikipedia votes can be strongly influenced by the way the question is asked.

7. Few Wikipedians voted in the RFC. (Is there a quorum?)

8. Percentage-wise, the most support is for option 2 (re-vote)

9. A few more people publically support option 1 but this also has the most number of people opposing.

10. There is more than just option 1 and 2 as evidenced by one administrator opposing both.

Let's try to work together in a cooperative fashion! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

checking back in here, I notice a certain something
I'm not sure what if any conclusion can be drawn here, but I note that of all the various statements and proposals, my view has the most endorsements with 28 supporters. (I'm as surprised as anyone at that result) This RFC seems to have died on the vine without ever being closed, and it seems as though ArbCom has elected to let the results stand, but this should give everyone something to consider next time around. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ArbCom have elected to let the results stand? That's news to me. That was effectively what was proposed by option 3 of the Immediate Options Poll - which finished up with two supports and ten opposes. How on earth we've ended up taking no action beats me. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That is because of the way the RFC was developed, what a waste of time, over two months of this and a fluffy vote comment and it is all wasted. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ArbCom has not made any official statements about this since they announced the results and stated that they were unacceptable. By their lack of action they have tacitly allowed the result to stand.I have just requested that a more explicit statement be made on this matter. Frankly at this point I don't care whether I become an oversighter or not, I just want a yes or no answer. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just got an answer, or at least a reply anyway. They say they have been discussing this and will announce something within a week. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's been eight days now, and as far as I know we haven't heard anything. Does anyone know what's going on? Alzarian16 (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I quess the wheels are not dropping off anyways. Arcom members are likely busy reading and preparing to comment on Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence Off2riorob (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they are seeing if there is a novel way of combining the two? As an interested party in both matters, I very much hope not! LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Call for applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions
The Arbitration Committee invites applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions effective with the posting of this motion. The application period will close at 2359 hours UTC on 1 August 2010. For this round of appointments, only administrators will be considered. Candidates who ran in the May 2010 elections are encouraged to apply for consideration in this round of appointments. Administrators who applied for permissions in the round leading to the May 2010 election may email the Committee at  by the close of the application period, expressing continued interest and updating their prior responses or providing additional information. New applicants must email the Committee at  by 30 July 2010 to obtain a questionnaire to complete; this questionnaire must be returned by the close of the application period on 1 August 2010. The Arbitration Committee will review the applications and, on 13 August 2010, the names of all candidates being actively considered for appointment will be posted on-wiki in advance of any selection. The community may comment on these candidates until 2359 on 22 August 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk ) 18:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Update on Checkuser and Oversight appointment process
Following the call for applicants (19 July) and the initial call for comments on the candidates (16 August), this notice is a second call for comments from the community on the suitability of the candidates for the September 2010 appointments for checkuser and oversight permissions. The Arbitration Committee is continuing to review and collate the comments received so far. If you have not done so already, please send in your comments before 23:59 on 25 August 2010 (UTC).

Those actively being considered for Checkuser and Oversight permissions are listed here (same link as above). As the primary area of concern is confidence in the candidate's ability to operate within the Wikimedia privacy policy, comments of this nature are best directed to the Committee's mailing list.

For the Arbitration Committee, Carcharoth (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Discuss this