Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.

Original announcement

• I'm glad you are giving TNT another chance. I'm less pleased that I was denied one, but whatever. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 03:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am still unsure If I would have voted to restore OS to you, JSS, but I would have liked to get feedback from the community about the idea before rejecting it. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, so would I. I was contemplating proposing a change to the procedures to make it easier to put future applicants forward to the community. I'm not sure that would have changed the outcome in your case (by my reckoning you'd have needed seven supports; if just four arbs recused/abstained/opposed you couldn't have got a 2/3 majority) but certainly for new applicants I think seeing community feedback could be a useful learning experience. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, apart from the 70% requirement, CU/OS votes function the same way ordinary Committee votes do, with recusals and abstentions reducing the threshold. See our votes in previous appointments. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original announcement

• I have no issue with the appointments but it would be useful for the future to determine what "outside the English Wikipedia" actually means. While the English Wikipedia is not the home project of any of the three volunteers, they are all relatively active here. It would be challenging to find any Steward who had never contributed here, so some kind of definition would be helpful. MarcGarver (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While the English Wikipedia is not the home project of any of the three volunteers - that, I believe, is the primary metric, as well as considering total edit counts across the movement. Primefac (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We stewards typically follow a test of if we are an active member of the local community for recusals on a project. That doesn't mean we can't ever had made a contribution to a project, even routine content contributions. This typically will mean being a functionary or admin on a project, or otherwise being frequently involved in the meta- parts of a project. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess that's my point really. The Stewards have a test, and personally I believe the test is reasonable and the community here could always object to a particular Steward. However, if this was a new practice, the community whould define the test (rather than the Stewards) so if there is going to be a future discussion on the practice (as the noticeboard suggests there might be) then it should include what "outside" means. Although, per Arcticocean, below, I believe it is a well established process that has existed for a long time and therefore a discussion probably isn't needed. MarcGarver (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's always going to be a little bit subjective, especially with the English Wikipedia, which was the first and is the biggest Wikimedia wiki. Most Wikimedians with a good grasp of English have probably edited here to some extent but not all will be heavily involved with our internal politics and those who aren't are unlikely to have any conflicts of interest (what we would call INVOLVED) with the candidates. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ACERFC next year is probably a good place to establish that consensus, I listed it to review next year in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2025. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight#Temporary CU for admin election scrutineers. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Committee is not contesting the consensus for ACE having non-English Wikipedia CheckUser scrutineers: it is saying that such a consensus does not exist for RfA elections (so ACERFC would not be the right place to create that consensus). Sdrqaz (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ahhhhh OK, thanks for clearing that up. This is something that could get put in to the follow up of the trial, along with deciding if the elections should even continue. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 16:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There has always been a consensus for this practice – that is why the practice exists. The community has been voting in Steward-scrutinised elections for about fifteen years: arbitrators were first elected by secret ballot in 2009 (excluding one aberration earlier in the decade). Secret ballots were introduced to address community concern over rigged ballots and the off-wiki co-ordination of electoral votes. While that sort of sentiment seems quaint nowadays, it was a real and genuine concern for the Wikipedia of 2009. Independent scrutiny was always an essential quality of these ballots. The community did not positively, or separately, approve the involvement of stewards in the first arbitrator election because it was already accustomed to their involvement in elections. By December 2009, the community had just had an election of audit subcommittee members earlier in 2009. The Arbitration Committee established that election and decided that its results would be scrutinised by stewards: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee/October_2009_election#Supervision_and_scrutiny. When the community decided later in 2009 to have an election of arbitrators, the consensus would have to have been for a change to the accepted practice for elections. As it happened, steward involvement was retained in that election and all subsequent ones, for nearly fifteen years, including now the community-organised administrator elections. The notion that it was not and continues not to be supported by consensus is just not true. Why is the committee looking for a renewed expression of the community's desire for independent stewards? There is obviously a concern here, and it would help to know what it is… Arcticocean 15:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes and no. There's also been a long history of bureaucrats managing the administrator selection process, with the assistance of Enwiki checkusers to review any potential socking allegations; that's been the case ever since the creation of the bureaucrat permission. The reality is that there's no reason to go outside of this community to manage our own community election. We are a huge community, larger than any other Wikimedia community. We do not have a history of our admin selection processes being hijacked. We do not have a history of attempts at external interference in our elections, or of using information from election data for inappropriate purposes. Those latter two points have been the reasons that a couple of other projects (whose main contributors reside in countries that have a long history of "official" interference in Wikipedia-related matters) have needed to move to steward reviews. We can do this all by ourselves; we have the personnel and the know-how to do it. We should not be drawing on limited global resources (i.e., stewards) for activities for which there is no actual benefit. There's no security issue here that isn't present in any other type of admin selection process. Risker (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If Admin elections happen again, I would suggest they be moved onwiki (as improvements are soon to allow) and for enwiki CU to be appointed rather than stewards, while Stewards continue (whether on enwiki or votewiki) to scrutinize ACE where that additional hands-off remove helps with independence and trust of an independent election. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fwiw, that would seem to me to be a good outcome. Arcticocean 19:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Independent scrutiny may be superfluous, but the pros and cons of it are a little beside the point. The existing consensus is clear: the community expects non-enwiki stewards to be appointed to scrutinise an election. That is why the committee announcement went too far in suggesting that these appointments are not routine. Arcticocean 19:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think in this case in particular, it became presumed at some point that stewards would be required because that's how we do it for the ArbCom elections, from which a lot of the procedures wee borrowed. I'm not sure it occurred to anyone that the scrutineering could be done locally. Personally I don't have strong opinions on whether we should use stewards or local CUs, though Risker's point about straining global resources is well taken. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I recognise EPIC. Regular face at m:Steward requests/Global alongside AmandaNP. Will be good, if the counting is monotonous. Good shout by the Arbs, if you ask me. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 16:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• To elaborate a bit on our message, there are two issues that I identify here. First, when someone reached out to us to ask us to appoint the scrutineers, we were a bit surprised because there had been no prior communication to us, and the discussion on point on-wiki had been minimal. The fact that a random user had to email us and ask us to do it indicated to me that the community hadn't appropriately considered the process and what would need to happen. Second, there are rumblings from some of our respected steward comrades that they weren't adequately consulted either, in that they don't have the capacity to be routinely scrutineering additional EnWiki elections. So the moral here is that, should the community wish to run admin elections again, more thought, communication, and outreach to the involved parties must happen. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Rereading this message, I see that it perhaps comes across a bit harsh, so I do want to clarify that this isn't a terribly big issue. It's the first time enwiki has done this, so I think it's totally reasonable that there's going to be some hiccups in the process. If anything, we're just trying to flag issues to be remedied if there's a next time :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I was the one that came up with this workflow. The way it went was we needed someone to scrutineer the administrator elections, and the original proposal didn't talk about this in detail, so many months ago I just proposed to copy how ACE did it, and no one objected. I asked how we'd go about contacting the scrutineers, and a steward told me I should post at meta:SRM. So I did that, and 3 stewards volunteered, but let me know that this is a one-off and they don't have the bandwidth to do this in the future. I'm a bit surprised to hear they're "grumbling", since they already publicly set a boundary that this is the only admin election they have the bandwidth to scrutineer.
  Anyway, thank you for cutting through red tape and passing this motion. It didn't even occur to me that they'd need local checkuser or that it'd require arbcom permission. It sounds like we have to use local checkusers in any future admin elections, so this shouldn't be an issue in the future. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Rumbling, not grumbling :) I was referring to I believe the same messages you are, which to me indicated that they would do it, but as a one time thing to help us out of a bind we had created. So I think we're on the same page here? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]